Loading...
2011-04-06 Regular ARRA Minutes APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, April 6, 2011 The meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair Gilmore – 5. Absent: None. 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (*11-032) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 2, 2011, Minutes of the Special Joint City Council/ARRA/Community Improvement Meetings held on March 15, 2011. (*11-033) Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council and BSA Sea Scouts - Ancient Mariner Regatta. (*11-034) Approve the Proposed Sale of Two Grove Cranes to NRC Environmental Services. (*11-035) Authorize the ARRA Port Manager, NRC Environmental Services, to Replace the Pier 2 Fendering System in an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000. (*11-036) Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with Scott Electric for Pier 3 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a Contract Not to Exceed $238,266 Using Remaining ARRA Bond Funds. Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] Chair Gilmore moved Item 7-A to be the first item discussed under the Regular Agenda Items. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (11-037) Alameda Point Commercial Market Assessment. The Deputy City Manager gave a presentation focusing on Alameda and East Bay market conditions and the implications for Alameda Point and its redevelopment, strictly to provide a market overview and not a development strategy, to determine the state of the market as it exists today. 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. Member Tam concurred with Chair Gilmore and added that economic underpinnings are critical at Alameda Point. Member Tam and Chair Gilmore expressed their appreciation to staff and the community for all their time and effort in the Community Planning Process. 5. ORAL REPORTS (11-039) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative – Highlights of March 3, 2011 RAB Meeting. Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed the San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring program, a program that monitors 22 water sites in bay, and 47 sediment sites. The RAB would like the program to take on one area of Alameda Point to monitor. The OU2A site, adjacent to Encinal High School, was also discussed. Surface remediation was done, and final remediation will be completed. Tomorrow’s meeting (3/4) will include an update on the Seaplane Lagoon. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS (11-040) Update on Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Second Campus Request for Qualifications. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services gave a presentation on the LBNL Campus opportunity. Representatives from the development teams introduced themselves to the Council: Joe Ernst, SRM; Mary Pampuch, Lankford & Associates, Inc. Speakers: Robert Todd Member Tam inquired whether any of the 21 applicants that had responded have the same type of potential development partner in RFQ process, in particular inquired if Alameda’s partners are unique to Alameda. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services responded that to her knowledge, the other sites are already owned by developers or have already teamed with private property owners; the other applicants did not go through an RFQ process for a developer like Alameda, and none of the other teams are teamed with the other sites. Vice Chair Bonta inquired when the announcement of the short list will be made and how short is the short list. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services replied that the call can come through at any time now and that three on the short list is reasonable. Member Tam inquired if there was any value to engaging legislators. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services stated that letters have been sent to Stark and Swanson, but recommends waiting until the short list comes out before Alameda starts lobbying. Chair Gilmore thanked staff for the update and thanked the representatives from the development teams for attending and introducing themselves to the Board. 8. REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. 9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary