pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2011-04-06 | 2 | John McManus, senior director of Cushman & Wakefield was available to answer questions. Chair Gilmore expressed concern that implementing a long term lease strategy that is niche- focused will take as long as implementing a development plan. Mr. McManus replied that a reuse strategy is different than a build-to-suit strategy, stating that it is important that it is clearly defined what is available. Advised a strategy to show potential office buildings with a potential floor plan and be able to explain to potential tenants that all risks have been removed and understand what can be delivered. Chair Gilmore clarified that in order to effectively market Alameda Point, money needs to be spent upfront to determine concept buildings or concept plans apart from what the master plan ends up being. Mr. McManus agreed with Chair Gilmore, stating that there needs to be a clear definition, and if it is left to the potential tenants to figure out, in an environment where there is so much vacancy, chances are that Alameda Point will not get their attention unless it's a very unique use with a big footprint. Member Tam inquired about the element of competition in the marketplace, asking what kind of recommended capital outlay is needed for Alameda Point to have a competitive edge. Mr. McManus stated that the good competitive news is that redevelopment and enterprise zones are not going to be competitors for Alameda Point. Joe Ernst, SRM associates, added that there is so much obsolescence of space - there is no longer a need for more plain office space -- and it is a function of understanding the market for spaces and uses that cannot be developed elsewhere, and aligning with the right team to develop it. Vice Chair Bonta inquired if there are market segments performing differently than the market trends. Mr. Ernst replied that those segments with superior performance include life sciences, such as the LBNL opportunity, light industrial, and R&D flex space. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the next step will involve doing more research and return to the Board with ideas or strategies. Chair Gilmore thanked the Deputy City Manager- Development Services and staff for the overview. (11-038) Review and Comment on Summary Report for the Community Planning Process for Alameda Point. The Planning Services Supervisor and the Deputy City Manager- - Development Services gave a presentation on the Community Planning Process. Speakers: Elizabeth Krase Greene, Adam Gillitt, Nancy Gordon, Gretchen Lipow, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Susan Galleymore, Nancy Hird. Chair Gilmore commented that she is looking forward to be able to discuss the financial feasibility of the Alameda Point project with the public so the community can understand how much it will cost to develop Alameda Point. In the past, since the developer was running a pro forma, a lot of costs were not able to be shared with the public. Chair Gilmore stated that certain costs are inescapable, no matter what is developed: infrastructure costs between $600M - $800M. | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf |