2011-12-07 Regular ARRA MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, December 7, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:21 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
(*11-081) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of November 2, 2011.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-082) Presentation on Status of Disposition and Development Strategy for Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point gave a power point presentation summarizing the
next steps for moving forward with the no cost reconveyance and development strategy for
Alameda Point. Staff is providing the update to the Board before moving into the next phase of
making recommendations. The summary focused on entitlement, transportation infrastructure,
solicitation and transaction.
Speakers: Carol Gottstein discussed maximizing the land value of Alameda Point, specifically
Building 94, Chapel.
Chair Gilmore stated accountability issues are a downside to Phased Development. The Chief
Operating Officer – Alameda Point explained the key is to have really good design up front, and
guiding documents that dictate how larger engineering and structure will work globally, so that the
design is solid. There is concern about different developers doing backbone infrastructure for small
pieces. Having a uniform developer for larger, 100- acre parcels, would narrow accountability
issues with fewer people.
Member Tam discussed concerns about funding of predevelopment costs, backbone
infrastructure, and that the days of tax increment bond funding may not be available because of
the elimination of redevelopment. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point remains positive
that redevelopment will continue, and tax increment bonds will definitely be part of the plan. Staff
will have more information on potential funding sources to present to the Board at a future meeting.
Member deHaan inquired where funding for predevelopment can be derived. The Chief Operating
Officer – Alameda Point discussed the two sides to the equation – cost side and revenue side.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011
With reasonable costs, a developer can provide ideas to test assumptions. ARRA has a fund
balance, with a certain amount spent on planning. Options will be explored to find ways to
leverage for upfront costs. Staff is exploring other sources of low cost capital with contingencies
built into the costs, with the same analysis used for other options.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired about the developer role as an advisor to ARRA. The Chief Operating
Officer – Alameda Point explained that ARRA would be the property owner and maintain control
over entitlement process. With the understanding that ARRA is not a developer, put out an RFQ
for a development advisor, with a recommendation that the advisor actually be a developer with
experience working on large-scale projects, not just a consultant. In this advisor role, the
developer would actually work for the ARRA, are paid a monthly fee, but their contract can be
terminated by the ARRA. The advantage from a transaction standpoint is that it would be a simple
contract; the advisor has no actual rights to development or land. The concept is that the ARRA
maintain control, work in a partnership, but ARRA would be the leader. Vice Chair Bonta inquired
if there are any examples of that type of partnership. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda
Point stated that Hamilton AFB is a similar example. Hamilton hired a team of advisors, which
included attorneys and economic consultants who planned and entitled all of Hamilton. They did
an RFQ with developers and negotiated purchase and sale, but had entitlements all upfront.
Member Johnson expressed concern about handling the most difficult parcels or areas that will
take longer to clean up. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point discussed starting up efforts
and creating value will make the property more valuable. Less money is taken out of the project by
a master developer, which leaves more money in the project for development itself.
The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point informed the Board that staff would be coming back
to the ARRA with an update in February.
(11-083) Presentation on the Status of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Second Campus
Process.
The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point provided an oral update on the LBNL Second
Campus process. LBNL announced that they postponed their selection decision to early 2012.
The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point stated that it is staff’s supposition that LBNL has
made a selection, but they are making sure the DOE and UC Regents are on the same page and
policy makers are on board.
5. ORAL REPORTS
None.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan gave a brief report on the December 1 RAB meeting. The main issue was the
RAB’s plan for ongoing years, specifically the schedule and frequency of meetings. The Navy
proposed to meet on a quarterly basis to cut back on operations costs. Various options are still
being explored, including teleconferencing capabilities. The RAB elected Dale Smith as Co-chair
and Carol Gottstein as Vice Co-chair.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011