pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2011-03-02 | 3 | Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and private development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of developers to put forth recommendations. Member Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point. Member Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process. The Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process that would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the design expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a normal design and review process. Member Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate development experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer evaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was not required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to weigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a disadvantage. Speakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird. Vice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time period and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the $14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800 jobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those host communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial phase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the Oakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no- cost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred to LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it will be title going to LBNL. Vice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what were the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create some uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services Manager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites. Vice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu of other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount, reduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of the initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive. Member Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to generate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development manager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the tertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants, shopping, and sales tax. The Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village. | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf |