{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY--MAY 8, 2012--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Councilmember Tam led the Pledge\nof Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmember Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(12-216) Resolution No. 14672, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute\na Final Naval Air Station Alameda Exchange Agreement Between the City of Alameda\nand the State of California, Acting by and through the State Lands Commission in\nSubstantial Conformance with the Proposed Naval Air Station Alameda Exchange\nAgreement.\" Adopted.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation and reviewed\nmaps showing the land that would be swapped.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how many acres are coming out of the trust and the acreage\namount for the first phase six months after the City receives the land from the Navy.\nAngelo Orbertello, Carlson Barbee Gibson, responded 96 acres of trust addition lands\nwill go into the trust in the first phase exchange and there are 224 acres in the trust\ntermination land.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the ratio is approximately three to\none.\nMr. Orbertello stated the entire trust addition land is 121 acres and the trust termination\nland is 301 acres.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the exchange has been discussed for years; inquired\nwhether anything has changed significantly.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated there have been minor tweaks; the\nproposal is consistent with the legislation from 2000; nothing has changed significantly\nin twelve years; approving this agreement is the next step required by the legislation.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Johnson left the dais at 7:10 p.m. and returned at 7:15 p.m.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4.\n[Absent:\nCouncilmember Johnson - 1.]\n(12-217) Recommendation to Approve Proposed Disposition and Development Strategy\nfor Alameda Point Based on Supplemental Information.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point and the Planning Services Manager gave\na Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry whether form based code seems like\nthe City is designing the project, the Planning Services Manager stated the current\ndesign review process makes applicants keep trying until staff approves the project;\nform based code offer guidance about the type of design.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned what Frank Lloyd Wright's reaction would be to\nform based codes; stated a form based code is probably good for standard projects, but\ndoes not create anything spectacular.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the Development Advisor's role would be very\nimportant; the City cannot create a form based code that developers cannot work with.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated form based code would not provide the opportunity for\nsomething great.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the concept of signature buildings was\ndiscussed in community workshops; people expressed interest when shown pictures of\nbuildings, such as the [San Francisco] Ferry Building.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City has to be careful not to just require mediocrity.\nThe City Manager noted mediocrity can be a product of traditional design review.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the form based philosophy was adopted by Council for\nNorth of Lincoln; inquired whether the City already has experience with form based\ncode.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the environmental\nreview would be covered if plans are consistent with the code.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether another example is Encinal Terminals, to\nwhich the Planning Services Manager responded a draft Master Plan has been\nprepared for Encinal Terminals to create a plan that the City would approve, but the\nPlan has not been adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam stated there have been cycles of booms and busts with Harbor\nBay Business Park; the Chinese Christian School was never envisioned, as well as the\nRaiders Headquarters, the hotel, and VF Outdoors; the current Council is lucky to have\nbuilt on decades of prior work; although the process would be streamlined, she is not\nsure the code would insulate the City and be flexible enough to deal with boom and bust\ncycles of the market; the Harbor Bay Business Park took a long time and the developer\nhad to sell.\nThe Planning Services Manager concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated predicting\nbooms and busts of the economy is very difficult; the challenge is to develop a code that\nhas enough flexibility to respond to booms and busts; a great project could come\nforward and the code could be changed to match the project; noted Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park does not have a form based code; form based code would not avoid all\nfuture controversy; if the code is done right, the City can do a better job of articulating\nprojects to developers and the community.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Council asked about development of a leasing strategy;\na lot of City subsidies are required for businesses, such as VF Outdoors; businesses\nare enticed by waivers, transfer tax breaks or discounted electrical rates; when\nreviewing a leasing strategy, businesses want to know what the City can do to assist\nwith expansion; understanding the leasing strategy is foundational in terms of bonding\nto do entitlements and paying for improvements; lease lengths differ; inquired whether\nthe City has a handle on leases and whether the revenue stream is sustainable.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City did not want to extend or\namend leases in the potential Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) location footprint\nbecause existing leases would have had to be renegotiated or bought out if LBNL had\nselected the site; staff is renegotiating longer leases; the terms depend on location;\nlonger term opportunities are being reviewed in the adaptive reuse area; areas where\ndevelopment would start soon have shorter leases; 24 to 36 month leases are being\ncontemplated for the LBNL footprint in the employment area so the City can be nimble\nenough to take advantage of opportunities; five to perhaps ten year leases are being\nconsidered for the eastern side of the employment area since the waterfront area would\nbe developed before the eastern portion; staff is cognizant of areas where development\nwill occur first and opportunities for renegotiating existing leases or entering into new\nleases; staff is trying to fill and review long term leases for hanger row, which has St.\nGeorge Spirits and Rock Wall, since it is a buffer zone and the buildings will be there for\nlonger; Keyser Marston is working on an economic strategy, which will address a long\nterm leasing strategy.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how the strategy correlates to bonding against $12.5\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 4, "text": "million gross and potentially $6 million net lease revenue; inquired about the debt\nservice.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the debt service estimate is\n$475,000.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the debt from the first year would be rolled over,\nto which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative;\nstated amortizing the first year debt service is common.\nMayor Gilmore stated staff was to bring something financially feasible; the first pad is\nfinancially feasible; the entire project and the three different zones independently are\nnot financially feasible; the bonds are 3% of gross lease revenues, but are 79% of the\nnet lease revenues, which is really different; that she would guess the reason the debt\nservice would be amortized the first year is because there is not sufficient cash flow;\npeople need to understand the debt payment cannot be made the first year; there is not\na lot of cash; further stated that she has questions about the nature and types of\ncommercial leases; 67 of the 81 commercial leases are less than two years, which\ntends to be more risky; inquired whether the short terms of the leases affects the\ninterest rates; and whether bond purchasers would be looking for covenants or\nassurances.\nSarah Hollenbeck, Public Financial Management, Inc., responded any investor would\nperform due diligence; stated detailed information would be laid out in the official\nstatement; the portfolio has been reviewed and the interest cannot be guaranteed at this\npoint; the conservative estimate is about 61/2% on an average life of 16 years; the\nmargin is fairly generous; the history and track record of Alameda Point is important; the\nrevenue stream is 30% higher than it was when bonds were issued in 2003; there is\nalso a much longer performance history; the success of leasing the property balances\nthe shorter leases; projections did not include any lease revenue growth; coverage\nfigures provided are fairly conservative.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the debt coverage ratio would make this the only\nopportunity to issue bonds unless lease revenues grow significantly.\nMs. Hollenbeck responded the bond issuance would include an additional bond test;\nstated a threshold has to be met in terms of coverage of existing and future bonds;\noutlined coverage requirements; stated money in excess of debt service has to be\ngenerated, but is not tied up in the debt.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether said funds [required coverage amounts] could be spent\nas cash, but could not be bonded against, to which Ms. Hollenbeck responded\nadditional bonds could only be issued on a subordinate basis.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is struggling with deciding whether the City should\nbond, not if the City can bond; the staff report indicates the development is not feasible\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 5, "text": "under current market conditions; that she would like to understand how said conclusion\nwas reached; inquired whether the bonds are being issued for the first pad.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the bonding is for a California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the entire\nBase; the project description might change over time and require supplemental\nenvironmental review; the initial EIR would clear most of the projects for the entire\nproperty and allow all areas to move forward; a Master Plan and form based code is\nbeing contemplated for the 80 acre residential project and the town center; hopefully,\nthe planning tool will last 20 to 30 years.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City would have a CEQA document for the\nentire Base Reuse Plan that is deemed not feasible under current market conditions.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the document would clear\ndevelopment up to 1,425 residential units and 51/2 million square feet of commercial.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she has a problem with going into debt to fund entitlements\nfor a project that is not feasible under current market conditions; Alameda Landing is\nentitled and is not moving forward.\nCouncilmember Tam stated there has to be some hope of return and feasibility;\nrequested an explanation of the [staff report] Exhibit 5 finding that the Base Reuse Plan\nis not feasible.\nThe City Manager responded the City's infrastructure numbers are vastly inflated; stated\nprofessionals need to be brought in to review the plan and determine correct figures;\ninfrastructure includes all mitigations and promises made to the community, some of\nwhich will never materialize; 79% of the net is not a fixed number; there is a lot of\nlatitude; in the event of stress, positions could be eliminated and the net would be lower.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated there are discretionary items in the\nbudget, which raise the debt coverage ratio to anywhere from 7.6 to 8.3; said ratios are\nwell above the amount required for the bond.\nMayor Gilmore stated maintenance is part of what would be subordinated to the debt\npayment; tenants complain about maintenance; that she would not want to cut\nmaintenance.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the major maintenance budget of\napproximately $1.8 million is off the table and would be paid before debt service; other\nextra, enhanced maintenance budgets are subsequent to the debt service payment.\nCouncilmember Tam requested an explanation of the assumptions in the Base Reuse\nPlan; inquired whether the plan would be feasible under any market conditions; further\ninquired about infrastructure costs; stated that she is getting more risk adverse since\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 6, "text": "there is no longer a firewall between Alameda Point and the General Fund; core City\nservices need to be preserved.\nTim Kelly, Keyser Marston, responded [staff report] Exhibit 5 was done assuming a\nholistic approach of developing the entire Base; infrastructure costs are much higher\nthan the current market can support; the converse is that the infrastructure has to be the\nsize that can be supported by the private market or lease revenues.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the infrastructure amount includes schools, to\nwhich the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded parks, a sports complex\nand school fees are included.\nThe City Manager noted the infrastructure costs are well above the norm for the Bay\nArea.\nMr. Kelly stated the table indicates that doing the whole project at once is not feasible;\npieces have to be carved out.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the prior developer looked at a higher [housing] unit amount\nand a higher number for commercial space; inquired whether the fewer [housing] units\nand commercial space should have a lower infrastructure cost.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded a lot of the costs are fixed.\nThe City Manager stated the phased approach is being brought forward because the\nentire infrastructure bill cannot be paid at the outset; all of the infrastructure cannot be\ndone under current market conditions.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the sum of the parts need to add up to the whole at some\npoint; without understanding future phases, the sum of the parts would not add up to the\nwhole.\nThe City Manager stated the project cannot be planned from the first day; any numbers\ncan be assumed; staff does not know what the market will look like in ten to fifteen\nyears; eliminating entitlement risk and controlling the Plan would allow projects to be\napproved when the economics work.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding the project description, the Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point stated the Base Reuse Plan with alternatives would\nserve as the project description.\nThe City Manager stated the CEQA document would be the master document; more\nfocused CEQA documents might be required for certain portions in response to market\nconditions in the future; digesting bases in one bite is not possible, but course headings\nneed to be set; the proposed process does so without being tied to a particular\ndeveloper or plan.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated developing smaller amounts makes sense; inquired whether the\nmost feasible project is 220 homes on 20 acres, to which Mr. Kelly responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she understands the need for a master infrastructure plan;\ninquired why a Request for Proposal (RFP) cannot be done for the [20 acre] site.\nThe City Manager stated one developer controls Alameda Landing; the advantage of\nthe proposed direction is the diversity of developers.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she does not object to having diverse developers; questioned\nwhy the City has to go into debt to do so; stated if an RFP were done for the [20 acre]\npad, the funds generated could be used to bootstrap the next project.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Mayor Gilmore's suggestion shifts the risks and costs.\nThe City Manager noted entitlement risk would not be eliminated under said scenario.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point noted both entitlement and CEQA would\nnot be done; putting the 20 acres on the market without having the CEQA work done for\nthe rest of the Base would be difficult; infrastructure needs would not be known.\nMayor Gilmore stated the money that would have been used for the bond could be used\nto pay infrastructure.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired when the City would generate revenue from going\nthrough the proposed process.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated some reimbursement is assumed in\neach phase of the project.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City has tried with a Master Developer twice; the\nCatellus Alameda Landing project has changed with the market; a 20 year plan cannot\npredict all changes in the market.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Harbor Bay Business Park has gone through cycles;\nwaiting for the market would put the City behind the curve; outlined the potential to lose\nout on opportunities, previous proposals and leasing history.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is questioning how to move forward and whether or not\nto go into debt.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated going forward incrementally would put the City behind\nthe curve.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 8, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated money would be spent on a vague possibility; questioned what\nmarket research indicates the first phase would get off the ground and generate\nmomentum.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated from the LBNL process, the City now has a vision for\nsaid area; as a result, the pad is more marketable.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the environmental review has not\nbeen completed; over a year of environmental review represents significant entitlement\nrisk and diminishes the marketability of the project; market research has indicated\ndevelopers are interested in how fast projects can start; environmental review is the\nlargest expense.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding rental rates, Mr. Kelly stated the City\nneeds to find businesses that are currently in the East Bay that want to expand and own\ntheir own buildings.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she would support moving forward if the funding could come\nfrom cash flow; that she has a problem using debt to fund entitlements.\nThe City Manager stated infrastructure cannot be built without a plan; the Base offers\nthe opportunity for campuses and companies to construct their own buildings with great\nviews in a location without adjacent residential neighborhoods; in discussions with the\ndevelopment community, everybody has said the one thing the City can do in the\ndownturned economy is get entitlements in place, which would make the land more\nvaluable when the economy picks up; the amount has to be paid either way; rather than\nselling the land with entitlements, the land would have to be given away; the reward\nmerits the risk; there is little risk to the General Fund.\nMayor Gilmore stated entitlement is a risk; however, the bigger risk is the property itself;\ndevelopers might not be able to build because of the land itself.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated there are advantages to going forward as proposed; a\nbig benefit is having control over what is developed at the Base; two Master Developers\ndid not go forward; a Master Developer would also develop smaller portions at a time;\nthe proposal allows response to the market.\nCouncilmember Tam stated no one is arguing to go back to a Master Developer model;\nthe community has a limited amount of control; what goes in is really dictated by the\nmarket; that she sympathizes with the Mayor regarding the concept of shared risk; that\nshe would like to share the risks with a developer willing to fund part of the CEQA\ndocument.\nMayor Gilmore noted that the City had a development partner to share some of the\ncosts for the LBLN proposal.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Johnson questioned what the alternative is and how the Base could be\ndeveloped without a Master Developer.\nCouncilmember Tam reviewed [staff report] Exhibit 6 and cost sharing.\nThe City Manager noted developers are not coming forward.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he does not know another way to go forward.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the other alternative would be a Master Developer.\nMayor Gilmore stated an RFP could be issued [for the 20 acres] to see if the\ndevelopment community is interested.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned how the number of houses could be decided upon\nwithout entitlements.\nThe City Manager stated the other problem is the developer would not know what is\ngoing to be developed on the adjacent land; the work done on LBNL has been reused to\nchase other projects.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated having entitlements makes attracting projects easier;\nthat she does not see other choices.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated there is some discomfort with the proposal; inquired whether\nthe City could dip its toe in the water without diving in completely, which would develop\ncomfort in the process and not cause $5 million in debt; perhaps a few key portions\ncould be funded; trying something smaller with less risk could build momentum; there\nare a range of choices.\nThe City Manager stated the smaller projects would not succeed without an EIR for the\nentire Base; developers will not do a piece without a broad sense of the overall\ndevelopment; Council could direct staff to proceed in said manner, however he is not\noptimistic that the method will succeed and it could cost more money in the long run;\nanother alternative would be to focus on long term leases.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired about other entitlement options that do not require issuing\nbonds.\nThe City Manager responded $475,000 could be spent over 10 years to do the work\nlittle by little and money could be saved to do a complete EIR later; further stated that\nhe does not believe there is a way to do the planning half way.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether or not there is an approach that could cost less than\n$5 million, to which the City Manager responded that he does not believe there is\nanother option that would be effective, get the EIR approvals, zone properly and deal\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 10, "text": "with infrastructure.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding debt, the City Manager stated\nthe other way has not worked for sixteen years; the underlying property issues are more\nimportant than entitlement risk, but cannot be impacted; entitlement risk is the thing the\nCity can deal with.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she agrees entitlement risk is the one thing the City can\ncontrol, however, she disagrees that the previous projects failed because of entitlement\nrisk; the projects failed in large part because they did not pencil out.\nThe City Manager stated part of the reason the projects did not pencil out is because\nthe City was going through the entitlement process with community interest burdens;\nthe base reuse process Statewide caused people to come up with laundry lists that do\nnot match the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) needs of developers; the City cannot correct\nsaid conflict; the proposed plan is a way to address said conflict in a democratic way.\n*\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:03 p.m. and returned at 9:05 p.m.\n*\nExpressed concern about spending money for a project that does not pencil out,\nbringing capital to the project, backbone infrastructure and predevelopment costs, and\nsigning a contract: Karen Bey, Alameda.\n*\nCouncilmember deHaan left the dais and returned at 9:17 p.m.\nThe City Manager noted that the development advisor may do brokerage on the pads,\nbut cannot bid on any of the projects.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the developer would need capital partners, not the City,\nrequested staff to clarify.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City would have entitlements\nand would engage a developer to do construction; the City would not take on any\ninfrastructure risk.\nCouncilmember Johnson noted the City did infrastructure for Catellus Bayport project,\nbut should not be doing so now; stated staff has done a conservative financial analysis;\nthere are long term tenants with short term leases; the plan is well thought out; Fort Ord\nin Monterey has been done piecemeal and projects have been done in wrong locations.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is conservative; questioned where the City\nwould be if going forward with one pad does not work; stated going forward with multiple\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 11, "text": "pads cannot be done without and EIR; $5 million is a small investment for the project;\nanother change in the market should not be missed; the Council committed to this\ndirection less than one year ago; if the proposal does not go forward, the City cannot\nseek grants or attempt to have the State allow redevelopment.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she would vote no because it is not the best time to be\nbonding and time would be better spent bolstering existing tenants, working on a long\nterm leasing strategy and checking in after two or three years; the City does not know if\nthe State will pass legislation; the action is premature.\nCouncilmember deHaan discussed leasing; stated waddling along will make the City\nmiss the next opportunity.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would not support the motion; no cost conveyance\nwas significant progress; elimination of redevelopment shifted risk to the City;\nassurances are needed that the infrastructure costs would be covered; existing tenants\nshould be bolstered; funds should be used to pay for infrastructure improvements and\nkeeping existing tenants.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he wants to move forward and has an appetite for some\nrisk; the plan presented has significant risk; that he would like to proceed without\nbonding; there might be other potential options; the plan has more risk than he is willing\nto take today; he would support a scaled down version.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested having staff analyze the proposal to see if there\ncould be another version; stated the City has to be ready for the next change in the\neconomy; the plan is not reckless and does not include undue risk; based on\nconservative analysis, the City has the revenue; $5 million is not a large amount for the\nBase; the Base will continue to deteriorate.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point noted doing nothing increases the City's\nrisk; entitlements minimize risk and get the City closer to having a shovel in the ground.\nThe City Manager noted staff would not be able to come back with a hybrid plan\nanytime soon; that he heard Council wants to have developers cover the entitlement\nrisk, which is fine; in the meantime, staff will increase leasing efforts in the adaptive\nreuse area and try to attract development in the employment zone.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City is committing to allow the Base to rot away;\nenough revenue is not generated to do real maintenance; the buildings are rotting away.\nThe City Manager stated entitling property piecemeal does not make sense; doing\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 12, "text": "projects in response to opportunity makes sense.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Vice Mayor Bonta would agree to any\nchange that would allow moving forward tonight.\nCouncilmember deHaan expressed concern with marketing existing buildings.\nThe City Manager noted bonds would not come back until September; inquired whether\nthe Council would consider being its own lender; stated if bonds and debt is the hold up,\n$5 million from the [ARRA] fund balance could be used and bonds could be issued in\nthe event of a disaster.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the problem is what the debt pays for; that she would like\nmoney spent on operations; going into the reserves to pay for planning does not get a\nwater pipe or gas main; that she would be open to going into debt to pay for\ninfrastructure.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated developers would pay for infrastructure.\nThe City Manager stated staff has a different view about what entitlement would do for\nthe land sale price.\nThe Chief Operating Office - Alameda Point noted having developers pay for\nentitlements would require a 25% return instead of paying a 61/2% interest rate.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is not convinced that the entitlement risk would be\neliminated through the proposed process; zoned projects have huge delays.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated doing nothing does not mitigate the\nrisk.\nCouncilmember Tam stated no one is proposing not doing anything.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated not entitling the property makes\ndevelopment less likely.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned what the alternatives are; stated the City would not\nbe talking to Target without entitlements at Alameda Landing.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he is not willing to support the proposal presented, but\nwould support some version; that he would be more likely to support a scaled down\nversion.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point inquired whether a scaled down version\nwould involve spending less money, to which Vice Mayor Bonta responded in the\naffirmative; stated hopefully, it would involve not financing or financing to a lesser\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 13, "text": "amount; something with less risk.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated spending the money is risk; there is no way to avoid\nrisk.\nThe City Manager noted the ARRA fund balance being held for a disaster could be used\nover the two years of the project instead of bonds.\nCouncilmember deHaan discussed a funding option spending $2.5 million the first year\nand $2.5 million the second year based on certain deliverables.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested the motion be amended to proceed in two funding\nphases: the first phase would use $2.5 million from [ARRA] fund balance; the entire\nscope would be completed as envisioned and presented in the staff report; after one\nyear, the City would examine the feasibility of moving forward with the other $2.5 million\nfrom [ARRA] fund balance or bonding; said structure would embark on the full scope.\nCouncilmember Johnson agreed to amend the motion.\nThe City Attorney noted financial advisors indicated $2 million would be the minimum\nbond amount that would make sense.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the bond would be taxable, to which the City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he is looking for a way to test the strategy and get\nfeedback without doing the $5 million bond up front; inquired whether staff believes a\ntest could be done on a smaller scale.\nThe City Manager responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether $5 million is the minimum, to which the City\nManager responded the Base needs to be entitled; entitlement for the whole Base is\nneeded to allow developers to know adjacent uses.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated having the EIR for the entire Base\nwould allow projects to move forward; the EIR cannot be funded incrementally over five\nyears; the EIR is a big nut that has to be cracked up front and costs over $1 million;\ndoing the entitlements, code and addressing infrastructure allows analyses to inform\neach other and makes the EIR useful; developers number one question is: \"is CEQA\ndone?\" because it is the single biggest risk.\nThe City Manager stated staff is trying to present an option to bonding.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint outlined reimbursement.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 14, "text": "In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's and Councilmember Tam's inquiries, the Planning\nServices Manager provided examples of prior EIRs being used for projects; stated\nsometimes supplemental mini studies are required; having the EIR in place is huge;\ndoing it half way is hard; it either has to be done or not done; infrastructure for the whole\nBase should be known for the first phase to ensure it can be extended and options are\nnot cut off; scaling back the land use side could be done, but does not save much\nmoney.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff discussed the strategy with a\nnumber of developers; Mission Bay has used its EIR for over ten years; the project did\nnot pencil out at the beginning.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the City or developers took the risk at Mission Bay.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the developer; stated the City\ncould issue an RFP and see if there are responses; however, a 25% return would be\nneeded.\nThe City Manager stated staff is proposing bonding at 6.5%; a developer would want a\n25% return for assuming the risk, which will be reflected in the amount of sharing the\nCity would have to do for infrastructure and other costs; developers want a much higher\npremium.\nCouncilmember Johnson noted the City would also have more control.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City owns the land; Mission Bay had to build multi-\nfamily housing, which cannot be done at Alameda Point under Measure A.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the constraints do not change if the\nproperty is not entitled.\nCouncilmember Tam stated staff is presenting entitlement as the only path.\nThe City Manager stated other paths include going out with an RFP for the Base or\nleasing in the adaptive reuse area and attempting to draw projects; entitlement issues\nwill always exist.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's request, the City Clerk restated the motion.\nThe City Manager stated if the strategy is turned down, staff would focus on leasing and\nreturn in one year.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he wants market feedback to show the strategy works.\nThe City Manager stated the strategy comes from successful developers; testing the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 15, "text": "market cannot be done on a halfway basis.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry regarding another option, the City Manager\nresponded it would not work.\nOn the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers deHaan and Johnson - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Bonta, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 3.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City would focus on existing tenants and the leasing strategy\nand continue to be opportunistic to the extent possible.\nThe City Manager requested a vote on said direction.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he does not support said path; he does not want to wait\none to two years and focus on leasing.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding the status quo, the City\nManager stated resources were being used to develop a disposition strategy; resources\nwill be utilized to do something else; staff needs to know what to work on next; that he\ndoes not want to guess about the acceptable level of risk; reviewed options: an RFP,\nworking on existing leases or being opportunistic.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that [working on leases and being opportunistic] seems to\nbe the status quo.\nThe City Manager stated that he would like a policy determination confirming said\ndirection.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Manager outlined how staff would\nshift workloads.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is trying to understand what would be different.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he does not believe Council has rejected the disposition\nstrategy and wants to go down a completely different path; that he would like staff to\ntake time to address concerns raised and come back with options.\nThe City Manager stated the strategy presented has vetted all issues and there are no\nother ways to tweak the proposal or satisfy concerns.\nMayor Gilmore stated staff has returned three times and a lot of questions have been\nasked; however, she has not become comfortable enough to vote for the proposal; she\nis comfortable with going forward with bolstering existing tenants, being opportunistic,\nsaving money, and seeing which way the legislature comes out; zoning in the proposal\ndepends on mechanisms that do not yet exist; then, staff could come back in one to two\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 16, "text": "years to check in.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the key tenants indicated they want\nthe proposal to move forward to have development that supports their businesses.\n(12-218) Councilmember Johnson moved approval of considering the performance\nevaluation on the closed session agenda [paragraph no. 12- after 10:30 p.m.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he can support Vice Mayor Bonta's suggestion to\ngive further direction to the City Manager to take a last look and have staff come back\nwith options.\nMayor Gilmore questioned whether the City Manager could come up with other options.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Councilmembers would be willing move\nforward if questions are better addressed.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is not opposed to entitlement and getting\nsomething moving; she is concerned about going forward on a wing and a prayer.\nCouncilmember deHaan questioned whether Council would go forward with a different\noption.\nMayor Gilmore reiterated her concerns.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned whether status quo is risk free.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is willing to accept a certain amount of risk.\nCouncilmember deHaan discussed reuse of buildings.\nMayor Gilmore moved approval of directing staff to support existing tenants, help them\nto grow their business, look for long term leases, be opportunistic if opportunities come\nthe City's way, and check back in one and a half to two and a half years; and having a\ndiscussion if something changes in the State legislature.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, with amendment to look at potential bonding\nfor infrastructure to increase revenue from existing tenants.\nMayor Gilmore agreed to amend the motion.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether bonding would be for maintaining\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 17, "text": "infrastructure or new infrastructure; expressed concern with the suggestion.\nCouncilmember Tam provided examples.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she would be reluctant to do so and would want to\namortize improvements through leases, not debt.\nThe City Manager stated said financing would have to come to Council on a deal by\ndeal basis.\nOn the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Tam and Mayor Johnson - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan\nand Johnson - 3.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he would like staff to spend time to look at concerns\nraised regarding reducing risk, scaling back the proposal and having an off ramp; a new\nfinancing proposal was discussed tonight; that he would like to give it a little more\nthought and come back; that he does not want to throw out the proposal; tweaks are\nneeded in certain areas.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether said direction is a motion, to which Vice\nMayor Bonta responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion; stated the matter should return in two\nweeks to a month.\nThe City Manager stated that he could bring the matter back on June 6th\nVice Mayor Bonta and Councilmember deHaan agreed with the City Manager's\nsuggestion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, and Johnson - 3. Noes: Mayor Gilmore - 1.\nAbstention: Councilmember Tam - 1.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-219) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nRepresentative, on Highlights of March 8, 2012 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nCouncilmember deHaan encouraged Councilmembers to read the report in the packet;\nstated RAB meetings would continue to be held every other month going forward.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 18, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:41 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 19, "text": "MINITES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 8, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:04 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:10 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nCarol Gottstein, Alameda, inquired about the City Manager's contract provisions\nallowing him to teach a course on municipal law at Bolt and the verifiable performance\nmeasures.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(12-212) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; (54957); Title: City Manager John\nRusso\n(12-213) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:\nSCC Alameda Point, LLC, et al V. City of Alameda, et al.; U.S. District Court Case No\nCV-10-5178; this is to discuss strategy regarding a lawsuit brought by our former\ndeveloper, SunCal, based on the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.\n(12-214) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators: Holly\nBrock-Cohn, Human Resources Director, and Masa Shiohira, Contract Labor\nNegotiator; Employee Organizations: Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation; Anticipated Issues: All (Wages, Hours, Benefits, and Working Conditions).\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Labor, the City Council direction was given to staff and the\nitem was continued to May 15th; and regarding Existing Litigation, Council receiving a\nbriefing on the status of litigation.\n*\nMayor Gilmore called a recess to hold the open session meeting at 6:58 p.m. and\nreconvened the meeting at 10:49 p.m.\n*\n(12-215) Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Performance Evaluation, the City Council discussed the City\nManager performance review.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}