Speaker 5: Could even be. Mayor. Councilmembers. Jennifer. Chief Operating Officer for Alameda point or obviously here staff has recommended approval of the city side project. I'll talk a little bit about what that includes, but before I do that, I will be speaking before you tonight mostly, but there is a whole team of folks in the city that has helped with this effort. And I just wanted to quickly mention Andrew Thomas, the city planner, Freeman Brown and Rico Penick from the city attorney's office. You know, city manager's office, public works, every probably every department has had to help on the finance department parking rack. Every department has had to help on this project. It's really been an inter-departmental effort. A lot of people on this team, a lot of consultants as well, helping to support our recommendation tonight. So I just wanted to mention that I'd also like to mention, obviously, the important partners, the developers here tonight and in my opinion, have been very responsive to community concerns and comments, have held a number of outreach efforts on their own. And so I just want to mention their hard work as well on this. So this has been a team a team effort. Can I do it?
Speaker 2: It's causing. From the keyboard over there.
Speaker 1: I'm just over there. And she can.
Speaker 5: Off to a good start here.
Speaker 2: Why do you keep using?
Speaker 1: In defense.
Speaker 5: I could just act out. I could just act out. You know, they were right. So first, the city clerk has already mentioned this, but I want to be really clear about what staff's recommending tonight. There's three actions we're asking you to take tonight. The first is a resolution upholding the planning board approval, the unanimous approval by the planning board of the site development plan, as we have affectionately called over the last couple of months, the pretty pictures. The second is an ordinance. We're introducing an ordinance tonight, approval of a disposition development agreement. And this is the agreement that the city council's wearing their landowner hat. And those are the terms and obligations of the sale of the land, the lease of the land, and the ultimate development obligations of how that land gets developed. And then finally, the approval, also an ordinance and introduction of an ordinance approving the development agreement, which is really the city wearing its regulatory hat and essentially vesting the approval tonight for the term of the DDA. So those are the three actions that staff's recommending tonight. Before I go too far and we've had this slide before, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it, but just to give a little bit of the history. In 1993, I mean, the point the Naval Air Station was part of the 1983 BRAC round, ultimately closed. In 1997, the city lost 18,000 jobs as part of a pretty extensive community effort, hundreds of hours of effort. Ultimately, the city approved in 1996 a reuse plan which really focused on limiting housing, emphasizing jobs. And that was approved along with an environmental impact report in 1996. Then those that document was kind of a vision document. A lot of policies were essentially taken and codified into the general plan of the city was a 2003 general plan amendment. At the time that general plan amendment was done, there was also environmental impact report that was done on the project and then were 23 to 2010. There were a couple of different master developer efforts and that was for the entire base. So looking at having a single private developer come in, partner with the city on the sale, lease and development of the entire Navy Alameda Point, which we're really talking about west of Main Street, everything west of Main Street. Those efforts didn't work out. And so in 2011, the city kind of reevaluated its approach to redeveloping Alameda Point and decided instead of looking for a developer to come in and say, What do you want to build? The city took a different approach during the recession, spent its own funds to essentially go through a community plant planning process to put in place the planning documents we call entitlements for the entire base. Really going back and reaffirming that reuse plan, which focused on jobs, limited housing after the master developer efforts that had focused more on housing and you had two of those efforts, one was 2000 housing units. The other was 4800 housing units. With the reuse plan, you're look, you're focused more on housing, more on jobs with 1425 housing units, about five and a half million square feet of commercial. So before we started the real entitlement process and planning, we wanted to say, first, let's go through a community process to make sure that everyone still feels like that vision from the reuse plan still makes sense. And that vision was reaffirmed, it was tweaked and things were done. But there was a vision document that was ultimately endorsed and approved by the City Council, and then as part of that, to implement that reuse plan, again, wanting to put in those real those really the detailed kind of rules and regulations about what would happen in Alameda Point through a 3030 public hearings before all of the city's boards and commissions which resulted in zoning of a mixed use trans and orange development zoning that created subdistricts at the base, a general plan amendment to make sure that the housing numbers were actually reduced to 1425 housing units from the 2000. It was in the general plan before to be consistent with that reuse plan, vision, a master infrastructure plan that we said, you know, if we're not going to have a master developer come in here, let's make sure we've got a plan for infrastructure. It's one of the biggest issues out there. Let's make sure that we have a plan for the entire base. So if we're doing incremental pieces, we know how it all is going to fit together. At the end of the day, a transportation demand management plan, which all that really means is kind of a transportation strategy for how we try to get people out of their cars into high occupancy vehicles, try to minimize the traffic impacts. A town center plan that's a very detailed look at the town center and waterfront district, which is really around the waterfront area. Our zoning said in certain areas we know the community's going to care a lot about what that looks like because it's the waterfront, because it's the gateway into a point. We said you're actually required to get a more even more detailed plan. And then through regional funding, the city implemented that plan, approved it in July of last year, called the town center plan. And then we also did our third environmental impact report. And and all of that was done approved in 2014. Most of it in February of 2014. A couple of these other approvals later. And then we said now that we have this vision in place, let's now go find private investments. Now that we have the community's vision in place, we're not going to do it the reverse. We're going to try to find a developer, make it really clear if you're going to come in here and develop this property, you're going to do it consistent with these plans that we've spent the last years, couple of years working with the community to prepare. So we issued a request for qualifications from qualified developers actually for two sites, site A, site B, the site A, we were very successful, got ten interested parties. Ultimately, that's what we're here tonight to talk about. I want to mention just briefly that we did do a second process and that was for a mixed use project site B was for commercial only project. We know that jobs are important to this community. We want to balance the housing and the traffic impacts. So we also did a commercial project, about 82 acres. We said folks come in with the smaller subsets of that. We're trying to be very flexible and we did receive four responses. But when we ultimately started negotiating with the finalists for site B, there was really because of the market and uncertainty, the commercial market in Alameda and Alameda Point, they were not willing to commit to any infrastructure, any timetable for implementing infrastructure, no land payments. And the city felt like, you know, staff's recommendation was essentially to hit the pause button. Let's revisit that. Let's work on the mixed use project. Let's get something started. And I'll talk a little bit about why we think this project's going to catalyze the jobs piece of this. We put the pause button on site B So here obviously tonight we started then after that process for site a site a planning process, again, we're kind of think of this almost in layers. You know, we kind of going from really broad to continuing to get more and more specific as we move through this process still all the way through all this process, working very closely with the boards and commissions and the community so that we're sure that we try to not get out of step with the community as we go through this more detailed process. Ultimately, November 18, 2014, the City Council approved an exclusive negotiating agreement with Alameda Point Partners. Alameda Point Partners, just to mention briefly, is a essentially a team of three developers. One of the reasons we really like this developers, because what we wanted was mixed use. We didn't want a housing developer that was also kind of, oh, we're also kind of willing to do some commercial development on the side, or maybe we'll get to that if the housing is really great. What was really important to us? Was that we actually had a team of developers that specialized in the different land uses, not just housing. And this developer does. They have three partners. You've got SRM Ernst that we're obviously very familiar with here in the city that has done a lot of the jobs production at Harbor Bay. You've got Madison, Marquette that is a national retail developer doing very unique retail experiences, not just cookie cutter retail development. And then you have Thompson Dorfman, that is a essentially multi housing developer very familiar with the the Bay Area has a great track record of also working on mixed use projects, which is also important piece of this . That exclusive negotiating agreement, we call that kind of the the engagement nod of the contract with them finding marriage. But let's work for six months on a process to and you have to do two things at the end of that process. To be successful, you've got to do a plan, development plan that gets approved by the planning board. Ultimately, we're you know, the city council will make that decision tonight, too, but we want to make sure the community likes what you're planning on building. So you have to do a very detailed development plan, essentially a site plan that goes through a lot of different steps, talks a lot about the details of what they're planning to do. And you also have to get a disposition development agreement or a plan a land deal. And so that's what we're here tonight to do, is to kind of and is essentially to try to turn this engagement process into the marriage contract. It's a binding contract. It was in your packet 800 pages. Most of those 800 pages were that disposition of development agreement, which is the binding kind of marriage contract. And so through that process, we from December, starting in December all the way through June, we had 13 public meetings before the city council. We had monthly meetings before the city council, all almost all the boards and commissions. We had three public open houses, hundreds of people that came to those. One of those was an onsite walking tour that was very well attended. And then the developer on their own, you know, worked with the community, did house parties, extensive other outreach to really reach the community, to make sure that folks understand what's being proposed here . Summary of the public benefits. I'm just going to read through these because I'm going to go through them each. But the reason the staff's here tonight is because we think that we wouldn't be here tonight, I should say, if we didn't think that this project was bringing benefit, public benefits to not just Alameda Point and the businesses there, but to the entire community of Alameda. And so this is a quick summary of why we're here tonight recommending this project, $103 million in total infrastructures and infrastructure in parks, 15 acres of publicly accessible parks, significant permanent construction jobs, 200 affordable housing units, compliance with our fiscal neutrality policy, dedicated annual transportation funding for services, not just infrastructure. Transit services to BART every 15 minutes in the peak hour and major contributions towards a new ferry terminal. So let's just walk through each of the little pieces. I'm going to go quick because some of this is done. You know, we've been over this before, but I want to just summarize it tonight. Mixed use site is a mixed use 68 acre parcel right at the gateway in the town center plan area. So very detailed rules and regulations about what have to happen there. It's mixed use. It's a transit oriented development consistent with the zoning that we approved, the master infrastructure plan, the town center plan, the Environmental Impact Report, and the team plan. 800 total housing units. 200 of those are affordable. So 25% of the total 600,000 square feet of commercial uses in both new and existing buildings, 15 acres of public accessible parks and all the units are within a block of transit, the transit quarter corridor, and about 5 minutes to the ferry terminal. Jobs and economic development. We've heard loud and clear when we did that. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab second campus this you know, the community really came together for that project because it was, you know, bringing jobs and so and that reuse plan, the whole point of the reuse plan is to try to replace the jobs that were lost . And so we a lot of what led staff's negotiation on this transaction was, yes, there's housing, but how do we leverage that housing to bring amenities that we think are ultimately going to attract jobs? And that means not just waiting until the end to get those, but to bring those things upfront so that we can start working on the jobs piece at the same time the city is moving forward. So you have development of 600,000 square feet of commercial and retail, 1472 permanent jobs. That's about one and a half times existing job base at Alameda point $400 million in construction costs, which is estimated to result in about 20 to 2600 direct construction jobs over the life of the project, over the life of the construction of the project. And then something that we focused on was, you know, we've heard loud and clear from the council that, you know, we don't want just the jobs that happened in the last phase. We want some of the jobs to happen in the early phases. And so Building 117, it's one of the large buildings in phase three of the project. Ultimately, the developer will take title to that land in the later phase. But what we've required in the development agreement is that they actually have to lease that they have to, first of all, invest in it early on as part of the phase one. Phase one. So they can't wait to phase two to lease that. We're asking them to not only invest two and a half million dollars in that building upfront, but also agree to lease it. It's about 100,000 square feet of flex office light industrial uses by the end of the phase one occupancy, so that you really do start to get some balance between the jobs and the housing. Additionally, there are actual infrastructure improvements that we really focused on when we were negotiating this deal to make sure that this infrastructure, the upfront infrastructure, was going to be a catalyst for other employment uses on other parts of the base. So we as not and also try to retain the existing jobs, which is something, you know, a lot of those existing tenants and they've said this to me and I have, you know, recognize that is that we sometimes forget that we have users and jobs out there now. And if we're going to retain them, we need to start to improve the infrastructure and the amenities that they have out there. And so it's important to get that upfront. Infrastructure managed to not only retain the existing jobs, but also catalyze new jobs. So one of the things I know it doesn't sound very exciting, but the new sewer line, which is very it's one of the few utilities that's actually kind of far off in the corner of the bay. So you have the pump station all the way up in the northern part of the base. And one of the difficult parts of attracting new construction, new jobs in the southern part of the base is how do you get the sewer line all the way down into that part? It's a huge upfront hurdle for a commercial use to have to pay when they're already in the market for commercial is a little uncertain. And so one of the things we said was, all right, well, site A, they need the sewer line, clearly, but we want that right away upfront. We want to make sure you bring that sewer line down to the gateway to the middle of the project. Now, if we try to track employment uses in the southern part, you have to go. You only have to reach up to the middle of the base instead of all the way to the northern part of the base. So very exciting sewer line. So we think that will really help us attract longer term uses in both adaptive reuse and the enterprise areas. The gateway, this is something we heard. We've heard a lot actually from the site B developers that did show an interest was how do we bring potential employers out here? Where do we what street do we bring them in on? Where do where do we take them to try to get them excited about the base? And it's very difficult when you bring in an executive to kind of drive out there now and say, oh, just trust us, this is going to look great. So by really focusing on ramp, the developer, I mean, Point Partners has agreed to essentially build the entire ramp up as part of Memorial Parkway from Main Street all the way to the Seaplane Lagoon, as opposed to kind of doing it in stages or phases which there might have been a way to do, build the entire thing upfront. It creates a gateway that allows us to have an attractive entry into Alameda Point. It sounds kind of soft, but it was something we've heard over and over again about trying to create an attractive gateway and then the parks in the phase zero plans along the waterfront start to create a sense of place, offer amenities that are crucial to attracting major commercial users. I'd say when we were working through the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab process, when it came down to, you know, the hard discussion at the end of why didn't you pick us? This was one of the key issues is that their their employees said, we don't want to be stranded out at Island Point. We don't know when the city is going to be bring in amenities. We don't know when there's going to you know, we don't our employees don't want to have to get in a car to drive to lunch every day. How do you how do you create a sense of place that that gets people excited to be a part of this community? So the parks along the waterfront that are going to be some of them are part of the initial phase and then the phase zero plans, which is this idea of having events and activities that are more temporary in nature but start to create excitement around the development. Affordable housing. This is something we're hearing more and more. I know the council is tackling these issues, but it's really the housing crisis and it's a housing affordability crisis. And so one of the things that we think is a great benefit of this project is that it's providing 200 below market rate units. That's 25% in this particular case, it's probably the only project that's getting built in the city at 25% without any redevelopment financing or Section eight vouchers. It's a major it's a major hit to the bottom line, which is gumming mean. But it's financially it's a big burden. But it's but it's something. So it's something that it's really important that they're doing that they're able to do. Without redevelopment and other funding sources, there will be a standalone, very low and low income project in phase one. It's called a tax credit project that's intended to get state tax credits. It's very competitive right now. But the team I think we're very smart about bringing in a very successful nonprofit, affordable housing developer, Eden Housing. I know I've seen their members of the executive directors here tonight, but very successful at getting tax credits. Very successful. They were just put in two applications for the latest cap and trade grants that were available at the state and were successful at getting both of them. So we think we've got they've got a great partner that if we're going to be competitive in getting this money and make this project work, they've got a great partner to do that. The developers providing free land and infrastructure. So they're putting all the infrastructure, obviously not charging anything for the land. And then in addition or providing a 3 million direct subsidy to the project to make that financially feasible, the moderate income units are going to be integrated throughout the project as part of the market rate, and then these will be a permanently affordable. The last thing is, I know there were questions and folks had concerns about how do we know that affordable is going to be built with the market rate units? We what we don't want is the developer to have built all of the market rate units and we still have our affordable and now all of a sudden the onus is on the city to have to figure out how to finance the affordable. So one of the things was that we spent a lot of time talking about with the developer was how do we assure that this is going to get built in? The way that we ultimately worked it out was that at the 396 market rate unit, there actually is a logic behind that number. We essentially say, you know, we're not going to let you build any more market rate units in phase one. You're unless you've demonstrated that you have tax credit reservations, which is cost, essentially, you've been awarded tax credits, which are these very competitive financing for both parts of that standalone, very low and low income project. And if you have them, then great, we'll keep issuing you market rate units because you're moving and you're going to and even housing, we know, is going to double over that. Once they got the money, they're going to deliver the project because they're very successful at doing that. But what if you don't? So then what happens? Well, we're not first of all, we're not going to let you build the rest of the market rate units that you want to build. And you then have developed a decision, you either have to kind of stop and kind of use some of your precious extensions that we've allowed but you to to or you have to essentially record restrictions on the rest of the property in phase one, that you're going to put the very low and low income units in the rest of your project as inclusionary units. So you're going to build a project and you're going to have the very low and low and they'll be restrictions on the land that you have to continue to put you have to provide those as part of your project. So those are choices or else we're not going to issue that 396th building permit. So that way the onus is on the developer. If there's an issue and there's a problem, it's on them to figure out how to do it, not on the city to try to pick up the pieces and make it happen. Mixed income development. We know we've heard this a lot from this council, from the community. You know, are we meeting that middle income range and so stuff? Really, we you know, we heard your concerns and we went back and said, you know, let's look at how do we the different product types, the range of products, the sizes , you know, that these units may be. How does that translate to household income so we can kind of understand what that might look like? Are we meeting the middle or are we not meeting in the middle? When we did some research, too, what we found was that one of the ways that you meet the middle essentially is to have a range and a diversity of product types. So before I get into this chart, I want to mention that, you know, staff believes that this project delivers a diversity of product types that meets a lot of different household types and incomes, ranging from the very low to the low moderate apartments to the townhomes, which are , you know, bigger and more expensive. And you got a real range of units and that, you know, to be honest, this is only projects in the city that is building market, a diversity of market rate, product types, where you most of the projects being built now are single family. This is providing a diversity of of different product types. And so what this translates in and it was interesting for us to look at this to to understand it a little bit. You see obviously the very low and low. And I should say that these are priced at the 50% and the 80%, which is actually the maximum those income category categories. So you could actually have potential households that are even lower than this where this chart shows you for the low income, then you've got the moderate about 72 units. It tells you whether or not this chart shows you rental versus for sale. Then you have apartments. And the real range for these is the different unit sizes where you have apartments that are going to be as small as 500 square feet all the way up to 1100 square feet. And by providing different unit sizes in addition to product types, you're able to, you know, meet different affordability spectrum. So you really, in our view, when we looked at this, you know, you have a lot of different unit types that are ranging from the 70,000 all the way up to, you know, if you take all the way up to here, $125,000 household income, you obviously have the the townhomes that are at those higher incomes and then the lower, you know, very low and low at the lower incomes. So we thought this was instructive and interesting. And we appreciate you being pushed to kind of show some of this data because it helped us to understand things as well.
Speaker 0: Before you move on, I to speak to that, I want to ask a question. When we had I'd seen this chart before, it had the units, the apartments starting at approximately between the 1990 5000 line. And on this one it starts sooner looks like around 70.
Speaker 5: Yeah. The developer informed us that they were planning on having some studios that would be at the 500 square foot. So we change this chart in response to their feedback. And that was this is the chart that was in the staff report that showed that larger range of units that would be all the way from studios at 500 square feet all the way to 1100, which would probably be a23 bedroom, two, three bedroom at the larger kind of 1100 range.
Speaker 0: So can you answer or describe how many more units have been added at the lower end? It looks like there has been movement here.
Speaker 5: Right at this point. The developer has not because of has ultimately in the design review process, you determine the exact floor plans and the number and type of unit sizes. At this point, the developer has not committed to a certain number of units in different unit sizes, but that's something that happens as part of the design review process.
Speaker 0: But is can can we rely upon this chart that there has been a shift to offer units starting for homes would qualify at the 65,000 as opposed to the 90.
Speaker 5: That is what the developer has told us they're going to do.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Transportation. $80 million in transportation infrastructure. $590,000 in annual dedicated revenue at buildout of the project. And that is for, again, transit services. And this is something I just want to take a quick moment to say, is that when we talk to transportation consultants, it's very rare that cities require developers to pay for services. Everyone requires you to build infrastructure as part of the project. Alameda is very forward thinking in this regard and all of our projects do this now. This development is no different, but it is. We're actually funding services because it's really difficult. You can get grants and things for capital, but it's very difficult to find other funds for operations and services. So we see this as a real amenity to the project. 15 minute last mile transit service to Bart's in the peak hours, bus passes for all residents, employees $50 a month. Clipper card subsidies for employees for those you don't know, a clipper card as it's a card. Essentially, it can be used on a number of different transit agencies, not just for easy transit, bike and car share facilities, dedicated staff, website and other programs. Ah, this is the fun one. Traffic impacts. I want to take a moment to talk about this. It's important. Obviously, we know this is probably the number one concern of folks is what kind of impacts this is going to have. And there has been a lot of discussion about whether or not these impacts, you know, how have been disclosed. And I just want to kind of go on the record is that I mentioned earlier there have been three environmental impact reports for I mean, a point. The thickest part of that, those air is what they're called has been the traffic impact analysis. So there's been three of those and they've all said essentially the same thing, which is there's going to be significant and unavoidable traffic impacts related to the development of Alameda Point. Those studies, the latest one that was done in 2014, actually studied 57 intersections. 32 of those intersections were in Alameda. And what they also showed I'm just going to quickly go through this because it's kind of a really quick and, you know, explanation of that is that the existing crossings and I think a lot of this is intuitive for a lot of folks are existing crossings are nearing capacity allow me to point is going to contribute to traffic congestion. The Bay Area. Local congestion is also worsening. So what we've actually found in our air is when you actually looked at the 2035 scenario of all of the development plans on the housing sites in Alameda in the region, most of these impacts occur with or without Alameda point. So you're so they're they're going because of the development being planned in the region and the development in the in other parts of the city there. There is going to be local congestion and it is getting worse. The capacity for more automobiles is reducing. What you have is what we call peak hour spreading. That sounds technical, but it's something that kind of a very intuitive is that, you know what, if the time that you leave for work is really congested, then you may leave a half an hour earlier, or you may figure out a way with your employer to leave a half an hour later that you start to see the peak hour spreading because people change their job dynamic, if they can, to leave at different times to avoid congestion. We also find that transit ridership is increasing. Something that we looked at as Alameda Point is a term. The city of Alameda is a very high usage of public transportation, especially considering it doesn't have a BART station. And it's much it's actually pretty significantly higher than some communities that have BART stations. And Oakland, I think where we're at 14%, Oakland's at 18%, and Oakland has eight BART stations. So we do see that transit ridership is increasing. We also see the region really getting behind, putting their kind of their money where their mouth is and saying, all right, we want to get people out of their cars and we need to start funding transit infrastructure and really finding ways to mitigate those impacts. And so you see a lot more federal dollars, state dollars focusing on alternatives. We the city is doing, as I mentioned, already, requiring residents and employees to pay for transit. So all the developments having to actually fund transit services. And then a really key strategy that, again, kind of, you know, doesn't is to try to attract residents and employers that want a transit oriented location. And this kind of sounds good. But you really we've been very focused on this. A lot of the strategies that the developer is proposing and our overall plan for Alameda Point is to have services from day one. So we want transit service from day one, because if you imagine yourself you don't have a car, you only have one car, you're not going to move somewhere that doesn't have transit from the moment, you know, you move in. I mean, if you're going to get to your job, you need to be able to use transit. And so having that service available from the very beginning, having multiple options so that we have a ferry and we'll talk a bit more about the ferry and other questions about that. The ferry, as well as the transit service to BART, have a lot of different options. Really good roads that facilitate safe and fast bicycling provide a lot of options that you're really able to provide alternatives and opportunities for people to not get in their car to use high occupancy vehicles, annual monitoring. Is it working because there are goals that this developer is required to comply with? Every development and in point is require every involvement in the city is required to comply with them. And we're going to monitor and we're going to make sure that sure you're compliant with them. And if we're starting to see some issues where things aren't working, then we're going to you. Then you're going to refine your plan, you're going to do different things. You're going to continue to have to refine that until, you know, we're meeting those goals. Also, we control parking supply and pricing in a lot of the parking and I'm going to point will be in the public. Arena so that we can kind of if worse comes to worse. This is kind of the stick part of the strategy is we can start to reduce parking supply, increase pricing, have some control over people using their cars. And ultimately, one of the benefits, honestly, of the city being the land owner is that you control the development phases in the process. Ultimately, at the end of the day, you decide if you're going to sell land to develop it. Transit infrastructure in this way. I'm going to talk about the ferry a little bit, but a complete gateway extension to ramp, including dedicated bus rapid transit lanes. Eight and a half million dollars worth of complete streets. What we mean by complete streets is just streets that provide facilities for all different modes, not just cars. $10 million upfront contribution towards a new ferry terminal at Seaplane Lagoon. And I'll come back to this, but I just want to finish the rest of these points, which is that we're going to I'll use one of the key things about some of these contributions to be able to leverage these funds for grants. And as we saw with the Jean Sweeney Park, you know, Amy could talk to this more. As with the dole money providing was a $2 million contribution, we were able to use that for matching funds to leverage other grant sources and get another $2 million for the park. So that kind of approach of leveraging private contributions for other money, we're making the best of the of of the development that's there and really leveraging it for other facilities. So let's back up to the the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal. I know there's questions why we having the ferry terminal? Why is it important? And I was just going to quickly I want to be really clear that this is a this is a contribution we have done. You know, we have looked at some of the costs. We know that the you know, depending on whether or not we find a used float, that we could reuse the 10 million, maybe enough. If we have to do lots of dredging. We may not it may not be we if we if we can't find kind of a some other facilities that are we may cost more. And so we don't the $10 million I can't stand here today to tell you that for sure. That's going to be enough for a new ferry terminal. What I can say is that without the $10 million, we're in much worse shape of having that ferry terminal. And I think it's a very important first step in making that happen again. We can try to leverage that contribution for grant funds. There will be regional dollars. I think the region is finally looking at water transit in a more serious way than they have in the past. And so we can try to really take advantage of that work with our the Water Emergency Transportation Authority to really find other funds if we need to. And and I will say, just like anything in this development, we talk about the layers. You know, we're going to have to roll up our sleeves and we're going to have to figure out with the developer and with we to how are we going to make that work and how are we going to get it and figure it out? And so there's still work to be done on that. This I did want to talk for a second about why a ferry terminal, a seaplane lagoon. It has been part of our plans for a very long time. I want to start with Rita. Why would we want a ferry terminal? The sea lagoon? We do currently has the main street terminal. They they are essentially nearing capacity now in terms of the boats that they have. So they're going to need shortly. And we're hoping with the reauthorization of the toll measure that will be coming through the next couple of years, that they will be, you know, getting money for additional boats for the for Main Street and for an additional operating dollars for a third boat. That third boat, if you if we we're use the $10 million and find additional funds if we need it for that ferry terminal, the seaplane lagoon, we've got the ferry terminal with the regional dollars, the boats and the operating subsidies. We can run one of those boats out of Seaplane Lagoon. And what it does for for we to is essentially you're providing service essentially into maximizing demand from a new development, assuming this moves forward that you'd have 800 housing units, 600,000 square feet, you'd be trying to you'd be putting it right in the middle of that development. You typically see these regional agencies require you to draw a radius around your transit center. This allows us to really capture the demand and maximize the use of the ferry from that development in walking distance. One of the issues that we do is finding is trouble with parking on the land side is not having enough parking for. So by putting it in the heart of the development, minimizing some of that, those issues with the parking and also by putting an additional ferry terminal at the lagoon, you actually open up additional parking. We will we are planning 400 spaces of additional parking. And what we would essentially do and I should say, just to give you a sense of where we just coming from, is that since 2012, they have grown 45%. A third of that growth has occurred in the last year. So then and they're projecting to grow 9% annually, assuming that they're not constrained on the parking of be 9%, you know, that they get the 400 spaces that the lagoon will be growing, projecting to grow 9% annually, which for a transit agency is, you know, very significant . So that's kind of Wilder's perspective from from staff's perspective and from the when we've gone through the planning process, having that at the heart of the development, being able to create a transit authority development, we believe, helps us minimize those traffic impacts by providing alternative transit. We believe it also helps us attract jobs. One of the things that the site bee developers and finalists talked about was when's the ferry come in? Are you going to have the ferry? And we have the ferry plan now to come in closer to where actually the jobs center would be so that we can really try to capture that benefit for the next phase of the commercial development from the developers. Standpoint, two things. One is they've got those goals that they've got to meet in terms of troop reductions. This helps them do that by having ferry service. And second, it creates, in their view, something that when they talk to the capital investors and private investors, something that they believe in and people believe that and we hear this from tenants that are interested out there's when's the ferry coming to the seaplane lagoon. Is it create more value for the project, which means more chance of success that they're going to build the project, they're going to do a good job and they're going to get it done within the timeframes that they've set out. Parks and open space kind of save the best for last the there's 36 and a half million dollars of infrastructure, about 33% of the total infrastructure towards park. This includes I want to be clear this includes flood protection. So it's not you know, some of the more the waterfront parks are extremely expensive because of the flood protection and shoreline improvements. Any time you do work in the water, it's very expensive. And so that's why this is so much. But there's eight acres of waterfront park along the northern edge of the Seaplane Lagoon, a neighborhood park, a greenway, an urban park district mixed in with some of the retail and then significant phase one park improvements and then an upfront payment as part of their land payment of $5 million towards an initial phase of the sports complex . This is obviously the less less exciting but very important parts of this is just the disposition development. What is that? It's the price in terms of payment and the developer's obligations, the city's obligation to actually to deliver the land as well. Once we get it from the Navy over a 20 year term with possible extensions and those extensions are capped at ten years. And I should say that even though the term of the DDA is 20 years, we actually the ten years starts from the end of the milestone schedule, which is actually 15 years. So the developer was very aggressive in their milestones schedule. They didn't max out the 20 year term. So when you talk about ten years capped at potential extensions, those essentially no more than 25 years for the overall term. And those those extensions have strings attached to them. It's not they don't just get to choose them any time they want. They either have to pay for them or there has to be a serious economic recession or something really terrible has to have happened. You know, we call it force majeure or like war or.
Speaker 2: You know, a.
Speaker 5: Moratorium or, you know, like a state moratorium or something really dramatic that's outside of our control, outside of the developer's control that could potentially hinder their ability to do the project. The documents that are attached to this are all part of the exhibits. The TDM compliant strategy is part of the DDA, the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan. So all those things I talked about, the requirements that they have are all codified in that exhibit. A milestone schedule which I talked about very detailed. They have to perform according to a schedule. And if they don't, if they're major milestones, things like closing on the land, things on completing infrastructure or completing the vertical improvements, those are considered major milestones and potential of events of default. So we could actually default them and terminate the DTA. So very important document that kind of lays out that schedule, a phasing plan for how the development will be phased, the infrastructure package, the mitigation and monitoring and reporting requirements from the EIA interim leases or building 117 and 118. So if they get a great user in there, even though they're not going to own the land and they want to try to use those buildings and bring jobs sooner, we've said, great, you know, enter into these leases with us. You can go ahead and use those buildings long term lease for the areas within the state lands, areas that we can't legally sell to them. A public improvement agreement, which is really an agreement for how the subdivision of the works and the infrastructure gets developed and those include performance bonds. So once they've started a sub phase of infrastructure, they have to finish it. And if they don't, we can call on their bonds and make the bond holder essentially perform on their behalf. So an important document there. Oh, so we have based on, you know, we it's we have put we put this out two years ago or two years ago, two weeks ago. So it feels like it was two years ago. But two weeks ago we have received comments. We continue to hear, you know, things from the council, from the community. And so there are some proposed revisions that we have placed on the dais. We have those available for anyone in the community. Communities interested in looking at those revisions are we've added a Section 8.16 to the idea that talks about repainting and building 117 and 118 by the end of Phase one construction. So this is important. You have those big buildings, they're not especially attractive. Let's make them look good. So even if they're not going to happen immediately or some of them are happening in phase three, some of them are getting leased earlier, but let's clean them up, make it look good. Second concerns, a lot of concerns and questions about the ferry terminal. What if it doesn't happen? We're talking to you. We're talking to people about having a ferry terminal. But what if it doesn't happen? And what if it doesn't happen as fast as we'd like it to happen? And so we've added a requirement here to Section 8.14 of the DDA that says the developer, and this is above and beyond the 590,000 and services is above and beyond what they're required to do in their TDM compliant strategy is they have they've agreed to provide essentially a shuttle during peak hours to from site A to the Main Street terminal until the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry is operational. I'm going to skip three because that's a lot more complicated and then go to four quickly. We we just wanted to clarify. I think we intended it, but when we look back at, we want to make sure that there is a ferry terminal plan that will be coming back to the city council for approval that talks, you know, that we'll have all the information, you know, the cost estimates, the ideas of how this is going to happen will be coming back to the city council. We just want to clarify that. And then going back to three, the idea here and number three is that we there's something called profit participation that's in here. And that means if there's exceptional performance in the project that the city wants to protect itself against a windfall, we don't want all that windfall to go to the developer. We want to share in those profits. And so what this says is and in this particular case, so that was already part of the transaction that went out. What this adds to that is a little bit of a nuance and says if at the end of phase one, because we've heard that, folks, you're concerned about not just moderate income, but moderate income ownership. And so what this does is says at the end of phase one, which is where a lot of the housing is, there could be some profit. You know, if there's going to be a windfall, it's probably going to be in phase one. If there's a windfall and the city is due money at the end of phase one, we developer want to put that back into the phase two condo project, which is a smaller ownership unit to add additional moderate income housing. Right now they're projecting to do 30 to moderate income units. This would be adding capping essentially that at another ten units of 42, which about 40% of that condo project would essentially could be moderate income housing if there's a windfall, if there's enough revenue. So it's dependent on the success of phase one. But if there is then essentially pre determining that going towards this phase two towards moderate income. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Clarification question is that so are you telling us that that would take the percentage of affordable housing on this project up above 25% is correct.
Speaker 5: If, if, if there's profit participation, I want to be clear that there could be that you know, this is at the developer's risk. Right. We don't guarantee they get this return or return on their investment. They're taking the risk. They might not. But if they do and the project is exceptionally successful and there's additional profit that comes to the city, then they're essentially using that they would be agreed to use that to create more moderate income units.
Speaker 0: Rather than pay the profit to the city.
Speaker 5: Right. And I will say that this is actually better. I think it's even better for all of these things. We believe from staff are very favorable to the city. In this particular case, that's even better than what was in here, because right now, what it says or what it said in the packet was that this has to get trued up at the end of the third phase. And if at the end of the third phase, it turns out that that profit that we thought we had in phase one, we don't actually have that profit. And then the phase three, that that money goes back to the developer. In this case, we're saying, no, no, no, you are agreeing to subsidize up to these ten additional units in this Phase two condo project. And no, we are not going to you know, if at the end of the day, you don't reach a return of phase three, there is no reimbursement of those funds. So this is actually an additional benefit over what was in the original DDA that came out in the packet two weeks ago. So it's we're essentially getting, you know, to use the phase one profit participation and not having to reimburse the developer at the end of the phase three if they don't meet their market thresholds. Is that clear? No, that one's a little complicated. So say this is again, I mean, when we talk about these layers, you know, there's still more layers, more layers to this to the development. And if this goes forward tonight, there will be detailed project design and construction, tentative and final maps. Both both those come back to the both the planning board and the council design review for all parks and buildings. Infrastructure Improvement Plans, outside agency contracts with East Bay mud. Jeannie. Bay you know. Bay Conservation Development Commission permits and then ultimately building permits. So there's a number of different additional layers that still have to happen after this agreement. And again, I just remind what we're asking you to do. I'm going to turn it over to the developer. I'm sorry that took longer than I had intended, but I'm going to turn it over to Joe Ernst from Endpoint Partners to give a short presentation. So thank you and I'm happy to answer questions. Now I could wait for him and then come back. However, Mayor Council would like to do that.
Speaker 0: Don't ask questions at this point. Anyone have questions right now? I asked him before the meeting. All right. Mr. Ernst.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the council. I'm Joe Ernst with Alameda Point Partners. I'm here tonight with my partners, Thompson, Dorfman and Madison Marquette. As I thought about my remarks for tonight, you know, I went back to the N.A. hearing and even time before that, as we, you know, looked at this project and pursued this project , and I was asked by several, you know, why am I involved in this? You know, this is a residential project. You're a commercial developer. You know, I've never seen it that way. I've. I still don't see it that way. I you know, as a developer, I've always believed that Side A is important for attracting jobs and it's important for attracting capital. You know, it may be, in my opinion, one of the most important things we do at Alameda point to attract jobs. You know, we know, you know, from our experience working at Harbor Bay, working throughout the Bay Area, the things that businesses want and this transition, this need for a, you know, a true mixed use community, you know, the amenities, the transit, the housing and of course, the infrastructure. And so, you know, these are things that city are providing that's important for jobs also. No, you know, you know, historically, Alameda Point, you know, really has competed on a low cost basis with its existing business parks. And we know that Alameda point cannot do that if it's going to track the kind of jobs that we want . You also mentioned capital. You know, I think city is very important to get going to send a message to the capital markets. You know, it's a big base. It's a lot of there's a lot of work to do. We need to attract a lot of capital, not only for city, but for the balance of the base. And so I think, you know, that's an important objective for us and something, you know, this team knows how to do, particularly for challenging projects. You know, we've put together the right plan. I believe the process, the team, you know, plan the community will embrace. We have the track record. And I think those are all things that capital, you know, will help bring capital to this project and benefit the balance of the base. So, you know, for me, city is as much about jobs. It's about capital investment. And, you know, these are things we're committed to delivering with this first phase. Also, on a personal level, you know, as a resident, as a member of this community, you know, I care deeply about doing this. Right. You know, we're very sensitive to what the community wants, what it needs, what the concerns are. You know, it's become apparent. You know, we've heard Andrew, Jennifer and Andrew say many times that this has been a 20 year process. And for me and my team, it's become very apparent that this process has come full circle from efforts that started when the base was closing. You know, and I believe our initially our initial plan flowed from the significant body of work that the community did going way back then. And then over the last six months, it's been further refined with community input. You know why I feel good about what I'm doing? What we're doing here is the fact that there are so many benefits. I think there's something for everybody here. This truly defines beneficial development. I mean, we have the infrastructure. We're creating a business ecosystem, things that businesses need. We have 25% affordable housing, which we know is far more than most projects are providing. You know, in Jennifer's presentation, we talked about housing to serve a wide range of incomes. And through diversity of design, we have the ability to do that. This is going to be the first rental product in 40 years. I think that's very important for businesses, transit, infrastructure. We're not just providing shuttle busses and clipper cards. We are providing infrastructure to make that transit a success. So I think that's very important. And frankly, we're creating a new destination for Alameda. And, you know, this project is for Alameda. It's not just for, you know, those businesses we want to recruit to Alameda. But after a lot of reflection on this, you know, after a lot of listening, after a lot of time meeting with people who are in support, who and those who have traditionally not been in support of development, I'm hard pressed to think of a better way to do this. You know, what is the alternative? And I do think the benefits here clearly offset the detriments, you know, particularly that one detriment that everyone's most concerned about traffic. You know, we've always been willing to listen to folks who've had traffic concerns. I, as a resident here, do think it's a legitimate concern. It will get worse regardless of what we do if we do nothing. I mean, we can't control what happens on our borders and beyond, but we are certainly impacted by it. So, you know, ultimately our solutions are going to have to come within. And, you know, I've lived here for 14 years. I think in the 14 years, this is the first time that we've begun to talk about solutions for traffic other than just no new development. And so I think and that's been the result of development, that's been the result of these projects. So I think that's very positive. And I think now the burdens on us to lever that, to lever development, because these solutions won't come otherwise without development to to provide some of these traffic solutions. And I think side with it's infrastructure, it's programs can be a catalyst for citywide traffic solutions. So you know, just in closing here, so yes, housing is a big part of this and it's good housing. It's something this community clearly needs. But, you know, in light of the goals and objectives and the fast the fact that we lost 18,000 jobs in the base closed, this is about jobs for me. This is about jobs for the community. You know, jobs that can benefit Olympians that are here today. It's about attracting major private investment, not just for city but for the whole base, something we desperately need. And it is, again, as I mentioned, it's about solutions for traffic. So I really do think the timing is right. I know our neighbors think the timing is right. They've created many specific plans to target these very things. San Leandro, Oakland. So, you know, I think it's important the market right now is is good to move forward with this and I hope you will agree. So thank you very much. Appreciated working with the council and hope we have the opportunity to continue to do so on this project.
Speaker 3: Thanks to.
Speaker 0: You. You have any other speakers from staff at this point? Thank you. County Council question yes.
Speaker 2: MEMBER Odie.
Speaker 7: I think you met him here. This is from his. That so. Can you kind of explain to us a little bit about what plan B is if if this does not go through today? I mean, how does it impact our tenant base? How does it impact our city finances? I mean, why how why would a person who is a taxpayer resident who lives on Bay Farm, lives on the East End, you know, care about a failed development over at Alameda Point?
Speaker 5: Yeah, sure. And I think that's it's a good question and something, you know, I think about and sometimes in the middle of the night, you know, I mean, I think the things to think about, I think there's a couple different things that come to mind to me. I mean, the first is what, you know, we do want to attract jobs. We want to replace the jobs out there. And I staff believes and when we talk to our experts, you know, that it's going to be very difficult to attract because we don't have redevelopment anymore. There are really no major sources of public financing, and we have to, in essence, to depend on the private sector to fund development. And I believe that if we don't move forward with this, that is going to be very difficult to attract private investment and allow me to point and attract even in commercial, you know, commercial development , any development out there and potentially, you know, are you know. New leases also mean we've gotten a lot of interest since we've been talking about these plans from, you know, major users that are looking towards long term leases and things. And I think that it will make that process of leasing more difficult without the prospect of amenities, without the prospect of the ferry terminal, at the prospect of rental housing and other things. So I think it'll be very difficult to attract the job piece of this without this project. I also think I kind of alluded to this in my presentation about existing existing tenants out there. We tend to, you know, and I'm been guilty of this and they've called me on it is, you know, kind of forget about the folks that are already out there that actually came and leased those properties in anticipation of development occurring within the next couple of years because that's what we thought in 2000 and now it's 2015 and a lot of them are stuck around. Some of them haven't. But I think it's going to be very difficult to both attract new leases and new potential businesses, but retain some of our existing ones. Because I think it's they're experiencing and I'll get to this in a second, too, is experiencing, you know, blackouts or they're experiencing issues with infrastructure that they haven't before. It makes it hard for them to continue to operate their business. So I think we have the potential of over time seeing some attrition in terms of the businesses that are already out there. And then I think the third issue is really the infrastructure is failing at 70 years old. We've documented that it was not built by to code. We are having, you know, more and more breaks and things in the water. And, you know, for instance and, you know, I was going to say public works director, but not public. You know, Bob Horne could say, you know what, a recent break wasn't just a spot break in a particular area, but an actual lateral break and a water line where you're seeing, you know, an entire waterline horizontally break, which is not just you're not just replacing a little piece of the street, you're now replacing an entire big piece of that pipe in that street. It's a huge liability. Is it going to happen tomorrow? Ten days? You know, two years, I can't tell you. But I think the longer we wait to redevelop it and start to upgrade the infrastructure, the more of a liability it becomes to the city, I mean, initially to the base reuse department and our lease revenues. But if we've got revenues going down because you have an attrition of of businesses paying rent and then you've got costs going up and liabilities going up, you start to, you know, that starts to create a real problem and potentially could create issues for the general fund in the event of some sort of major issue. So, you know, I'm not I can't you know, I'm not know there's no crystal ball as to what's going to happen. But I think not moving forward at the basin with a project like this that brings this kind of investment, there are increased liabilities to the city in the future.
Speaker 0: I have a question. Sure. We have apartments 100% rental. It says here, but my understanding there's an overlay for condos can relate to that.
Speaker 5: Yes, absolutely. That's a great point to make, is that all of the apartments, you know, we heard loud and clear that there was concerns about having smaller ownership out there or creating the potential for that. And so one of the things the developers agreed to do is create a a condo map for all apartments. So, you know, they could there is the potential for if I mean, the the issue of condos in phase one is that there are a lot of condos that were built as part of the last housing boom. They're kind of the last and they were the hardest hit by the recession. You see a lag. You've seen a lag in that market kind of come back. There's not that market. Now, you also see some increase. Condos cost more because of insurance. That's very expensive for condominiums. And so you have to hit a certain price point to kind of make it work. And they don't believe at this point, given the uncertainty, you know, as a new market, I mean, we're creating a whole new community out there that that's going to be, you know, that we're going to meet that threshold of the market in phase one. But by creating this overlay with the condos, if we hit that that, you know, that points, there is the potential for more ownership smaller ownership units at the base or as part of site I, I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I appreciate that. And then the chart that was on page. You know, the one with the OC. It's page 11 of the site. A income ranges by housing type. Huh? It's. The 362 units here. It says, you know, for for rent. You just clarified that. Yes. In fact, some of those could be condos to purchase. And but with this setup that you have here, what was the percentage for rent overall?
Speaker 5: So the percentage for rents overall, you know, it depends if you exclude the rent, the very low and low versus the low.
Speaker 0: Do you know Cecily Reynolds?
Speaker 5: But two thirds include including the very low. That's okay. So two thirds are rentals, including the very low and low income units, which are always rental because the only way you can get the financing for them. I think if you exclude those, it goes down to. Yeah, about 60% when you exclude the very.
Speaker 0: Low, low, and then it's around 60%. Okay. Then my question will be to our counsel. The rentals here under state law of current California state law, if our city ever looks at rent control, could there be rent control over these units?
Speaker 2: The answer would be no, because they're built after 1995 and they are also condominium sized and condominium sized units cannot also have rent control.
Speaker 0: Okay. And do we anticipate that there would be a local land laud for these rentals? If if we have people that are renting and are concerned about rent increases.
Speaker 5: The intent is, I believe, for Thompson Dorfman are to maintain ownership of those units. I mean, they could be that they sell some of the apartments, but at this point, I think they're planning on I mean, part of their business model is to retain ownership of the apartments. Essentially, they're called income properties to generate income over time. And so their intent right now is to maintain those. But but they could sell them.
Speaker 0: And where are they based?
Speaker 5: They're based in Mill Valley.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if someone running one of these is concerned about the rent increase and they would contact someone in Mill Valley about an adjustment or if they have any concern.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Council Members Bruce Dorfman.
Speaker 3: All properties of this scale have on site management. And so there is actually a property manager that will live on the property. And B, you know, they're 24.
Speaker 1: Seven effectively.
Speaker 0: So we do have a few apartment buildings like that. And lately they've been showing up in front of Rack, which is our rent advisory committee. And we have people coming and being very concerned about rent increases. And we have had actually as a city, we've had very poor results of trying to resolve those rent increases with. But I'm going to call out of town landlords even when they have someone from their building that shows up. Because I go to these meetings, they come down here and they'll say, you know, my authority is to support what it was, which could be an an increase in the rent. So we're actually dealing with out of town landlords on those buildings. And as a city, we do not have the same response of trying to be reasonable with the rent increases. So do you anticipate moving forward because this is since this would be something that we cannot have our rent control on ever, this would be something that would go in front of our rack. So do you anticipate that we would have someone that would be able to come and negotiate here at our meetings to have that type of issue?
Speaker 3: Sure. But I would like to just point out that all of our residents, since this is a new project, are going to be income qualified and none of the residents will qualify if their income isn't more than three times the amount of the rent. So I don't anticipate having those sorts of issues on this project.
Speaker 0: But the issues have been in regards to rent increases, some some tenants have received rent increases of a significant amount, not initially. It's actually when it becomes a month to month. Do you anticipate if when when we have if you're anticipating we would not have any issues in regards to having those tenants come to our Iraq meetings
Speaker 3: ? I wouldn't anticipate that for a long, long, long time.
Speaker 0: All right. So initiate that. Thank you. Any other questions? All right, we have. I think she said 50 some speakers at this point. So what I've been told is we're going to I'm going to receive sets of ten and I will be calling out names in the order that I hand in these sets. And then if people can line up to the right and then if possible, especially if you've heard someone else say something that you said, we really appreciate it. If you could try to keep it to 2 minutes of counsel, are you okay with that? And if, in fact, someone has said almost everything you want it, you've planned to say, it's fine to come and stand up here and say you agree with prior speaker. So we really appreciate that. All right. So I'm going to say all the names in order and then we'll come back around and start having you actually speak . Christopher Koster. Matt Regan. Assembly member Rob Bonta. If you'd like to go first, you may recall the first. Former Mayor Mary Gilmore, a former mayor. Beverly Johnson, former mayor Bill Withrow, Bruce Chernoff. Kathy Mooring, Tricia Reilly and then Ann Savalas. All right, take it away. First.
Speaker 1: Possible.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madame Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor. Council members, city staff and fellow comedians. I'm Rob Bonta, and I'm honored to represent you in the California State Assembly. Tonight, as you know and as you're feeling, is a momentous occasion for the city of Alameda and the East Bay as you vote on this critical public private development in Alameda Point. As Vice mayor. Working with my colleagues, we secured the no cost conveyance of Alameda Point from the federal government to the city. That created a tremendous opportunity for our city. Moving forward with tonight's vote is a critical next step. Tonight's vote represents a culmination of the hard work of many people over the last two decades in helping implement our community's vision for Alameda Point. This vision resulted in the plan before you today. A high quality, mixed use, transit oriented waterfront development with jobs, amenities, housing for multiple income levels, including 25% affordable housing, much needed infrastructure improvements and parks. I'm proud that 25% of the housing units on site are dedicated to very low, low and moderate income households. One of the state legislatures highest priorities is funding is finding a funding source for affordable housing to replace redevelopment. I want to personally thank this Council for supporting AB 1335, a bill that I'm coauthoring with Speaker Toni Atkins to fund affordable housing projects statewide. I'm also proud that the development team was able to work with the building trades to craft a landmark project labor agreement covering many of the direct construction jobs, ensuring that our skilled, well-trained and productive workers who build outside are able to earn sustainable wages. And the developers can proceed with certainty regarding their costs and the dependability and quality of the workforce. Most are proud that the development team was able to work with the hotel and restaurant employee unions to ensure that the employees who will make up a portion of the onsite permanent jobs dedicated to these industries will be allowed to organize if they so choose, without interference and have the ability to earn a living wage and help work towards closing the income inequality gap here in California. As you know, Alameda Point is one of the largest urban infill development opportunities in the Bay Area, with the infrastructure improvements, capital facilities and workforce housing included in the city plan. We can continue to replace the jobs lost when the Navy left in 1997. By retaining and attracting leading employers. Finally, the public amenities included in the plan will greatly enrich the quality of life of all immigrants, including via a new ferry terminal and with parks and open spaces. As the father of three school age children who loved to play soccer and other sports. I'm excited that the plan includes an upfront payment of $5 million towards an initial phase of the sports complex and 36.5 million in total for the parks and closing. I want to join my fellow Alameda. As in endorsing this project and urging the council to vote yes on Saturday and begin to implement our community's vision for Alameda Point. I want to thank you for your consideration and thank you for your service.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Christopher Koster. I'm a planning board member here at the city of Alameda. Dear Mayor. Vice Vice Mayor and members of city council and staff. As a planning board member, I urge the Council to support this decision that was made unanimously, unanimous unanimously by the city boards and the planning board to move ahead with plans for site at LME 2.0. I continue to support site developments and here's why. When I came to Alameda just seven years ago, I was excited about the developments around the naval base. I jumped at the opportunity to help at that time and get the word out about the developments. I was a firm believer that the projects at the base, if done appropriately, would help propel Alameda as a destination city within the Bay Area. I decided to join the planning board because of my interest in the site and better serve our island to fix past planning problems that have plagued or plague small towns around America. I wanted to engage our city leaders and put my skills to use. I make sure that the next time this project came back before the city, we would have the right team and the right track to move forward. And now we do. Alan made a point is probably the best views of the city has the best views of the city of San Francisco apart from maybe Treasure Island, but that's clouded in fog. There's a reason why the Navy chose to chose this land to begin with, not only for its relationship to the Bay, but it is one of the best parcels of lands with the best views of the Bay. One of our island's biggest problems is that Alameda has turned its back for years on the views or on these views for years developing industry along the periphery of the islands and not capitalizing on our free multimillion dollar views. I've always envisioned that Alameda could one day become a city much like Vancouver, in which that city took a bold step to open up the waterfronts not only for business, but the public right away, giving everyone access to the edge. The island grants future generations the opportunity to grow and thrive within Alameda Urban Core. When the base closed. The main goal at that time was the creation of jobs. In the 20 years since, companies have slowly moved out to the base to seek incubator spaces to do some very creative work. Just think of what we could create if we repaired the aging infrastructure and decaying architecture. Basically tonight boils down to this. Are we asking that we focus or we aren't asking that we focus on the entire base as a whole, but we ask that we take the next step together as a team to do our best in creating a synergy at the base with the best minds in the game. Where we go from here is anyone's guess, but as I know, we don't want to come back 20 years from now from this moment and said, I wish I had done something. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Madam Mayor. Council members. My name is Matt Regan. I manage housing and development policy for the Bay Area Council. We are a business sponsored public policy and advocacy organization, comprising about 300 of the region's largest employers, including the soon to be world champion Golden State Warriors. I say I manage the housing policy for the Council and over the last ten or so years I've been doing this work. I've looked at a lot of projects from all nine counties, and there are no perfect projects. There are no projects that will meet all your housing needs, all your traffic needs, all your infrastructure needs. But there are very, very good projects. And this is one of them. It is a project that when you look at the housing side, which is most important to us, as you know, we're in an original housing crisis. The development team have managed to put together a package with 25% affordable, which is very, very difficult to do in today's world absent redevelopment funding, absent a lot of the state bonds which are expiring, and absent some of the federal dollars which were available during the stimulus funding period. So the fact that they've been able to to pencil out a project with 25% affordable and win some of the state cap and trade funding dollars is a true testament to the talent of the development team and the project that they've put together. Those cap and trade dollars are very competitive and here in the Bay Area where we have 13% of the region's population below the poverty line, we only get 5% of those dollars. So the fact that Eden Housing has been able to get two grants for that money is again testament to the quality of the project and team . I'd also like to talk briefly about the transportation side. The fact that they're committing $10 million to a ferry terminal is is very forward thinking. We wrote and created we wrote the legislation that.
Speaker 1: Created Weight of the Water.
Speaker 3: Emergency Transit Authority and helped secure the funding.
Speaker 1: For that agency. We have big plans for Wheeler, and we're hoping that in the next decade or so.
Speaker 3: The bay will be crisscrossed by dozens and dozens of ferries where we're not building any more bridges anytime soon of BART tunnels or new freeways, but we can build ferries and ferry terminals. And the fact that we have a private developer here willing to invest in a ferry terminal is critical.
Speaker 1: And finally, a part of my job, I have to read the newspapers every day. And I looked at two interesting stories today. One in the it was the.
Speaker 3: Santa Rosa Press Democrat and the other in the Contra Costa Times. Contra Costa Times story talked about all the amazing things that Google are doing in Alameda Point with their wind turbines and the new technology that's taking place out there and how that's driving our region's economy. Now, there was a story in the press, Democrat, about how California's economy is now the seventh largest in the world. We just passed Brazil at $2.4 trillion GDP. But the tell the tale of that story was we're not building enough housing to.
Speaker 1: Sustain our economy. Our economy is threatening with cratering if we don't build enough housing.
Speaker 3: So I would urge you to support the project for the housing, if nothing else.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Next speaker.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Maria Gilmore and I'm very pleased to be here tonight with two former mayors, Mayor Beverly Johnson, former Mayor Bill Withrow and former council member Lina Tam. As we urge you to unanimously support the development of site A at Alameda Point. Each of us in our small way have positioned the city for this opportunity to begin the development of Alameda Point Site A is a catalyst for Alameda Point. When this is approved, it will jumpstart sorely needed infrastructure. We're talking sewers. We're talking water and we're talking telecom. Moreover, it will give hope to existing businesses that Alameda is serious about developing Alameda Point and it will allow those businesses to plan for their future here in Alameda. It will also attract additional businesses to Alameda point because there will be a there there and out of this deal we also get open space, including a major contribution towards our sports complex. And it will give some relief to the rent and housing crisis that all of you, but particularly the mayor, are so concerned about. Despite many false starts, we have the opportunity to create something enjoyable and beautiful for all. Alan means. The community came together on a plan. This plan. The city led the entitlement process based on that community plan, and the city with community input chose a developer who is led by a local Alameda resident who has an amazing track record in Alameda. If there is no approval of this project tonight, it's going to send a message to development companies, financial institutions and current businesses at Alameda Point that the city has no intention of ever developing Alameda Point. However, tonight you have an opportunity to fulfill what decades of former mayors and city councils have attempted to do. So I respectfully ask you to make this your legacy and unanimously approved Alameda point partners plan to develop site a tonight. We have waited decades and the door is closing. This is likely to be our last chance. So I respectfully ask you to vote yes on this project this evening. Thank you for your time and your attention.
Speaker 0: Beverly Johnson. Did you want to come next? The bill through. They might not have memorized. You might have to say it again. So in that line, you can just come up as soon as the next one's done. Okay?
Speaker 2: Okay. Go ahead. Well, good evening, all of you. Mayor Spencer and vice mayor and council members. I just don't have a lot of experience on this side of the audience. So sorry about that. I just have to tell you, just right off the bat, you are the luckiest council in Alameda in probably 25 years because you get to vote to move this project forward. And earlier, I think it was Mr. Urban said, 20 years. No, it's if you count the terms of the three former mayors that are here 16 years and then mayor of Zardoz to two terms, that's 24 years. And this has been a community project in the process for 24 years. And just one of the things I was thinking about when I coming to the meeting tonight was when I first started on the planning board in 1995, and Mayor Gilmore preceded me on the planning board and the I immediately started serving on the brag committees and there were hundreds of Alameda residents that were serving on those Brad committees to try to move this process forward. And then and we had the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Commission that was a large regional body. And Councilmember De Saag and Councilmember Desai preceded me on the council. So he's been doing this for a long time too, and a large regional body because we all knew that these these projects were going to have regional impacts. And, you know, eventually as time went on, then there was the, the, the, the, the ceremony in 19, the disestablishment ceremony in 1997. And I have the book that the Navy said we are going to clean and convey the property by I think it was the year 2000, maybe it was 2001, but it was it was very early on. And here we are. The base was closed in 1997. Here we are 24, 25 years later. How? I didn't count the years, but it's a long time later. Many councils, many mayors, many citizens groups that have worked very hard to get this done. And I look at the plan that that that that they're proposing and I say, I don't think there could be a better plan. I really don't. It's the the housing, jobs, economic development balance of this plan. We went through development plan, master developers that were proposing thousands of housing units, you know, first 2000 housing housing units and then 4500 housing units. And it it couldn't work that way. This is a very good balance of jobs, economic development and housing. And Alameda will be very proud of this development. Alameda will will be proud of this. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: You. Keep coming.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mayor Council members rec 93 reported out to the president on the 1st of July in 93, and I remember that date very well. It was like a punch in the stomach. That was 21 years, 11 months and 16 days ago. The property, or approximately 30% of the main island has basically been sitting fallow for almost 22 years. Yes. It's not easy to send to easy drill. And we all know anybody that's been elected understands this. It's not an easy drill to satisfy the hopes, desires, values and priorities of 100% of our residents, of our community and the surrounding region in all facets of change, evolution and progress. We need to focus on all aspects of our community, including the maintenance of financial viability over the long haul. We need to focus on being a good neighbor in the region, which includes creation of good jobs. I consider the proposal for safety to be very balanced and an appropriate start to the development of this extremely important segment of our city. And I fully support it. At this point in time, too, I'd like to say that the briefing the executive briefing Jennifer had provided was one of the best that I've sat through. I thought it was fantastic. And she's absolutely an asset to this community. But as she has stated, it represents a first step toward achieving this community's vision of a mixed use transit oriented development. I'd like to say at this point that I recently had a nice conversation with Bill Norton, who was the Alameda city manager during the 1990s. Unfortunately, he's out of town, couldn't attend, but he agreed with my views and said that I conveyed could convey that he fully supports this development proposal. Plan calls for 800 new housing units as an initial step to a total of 1425 for the entire Alameda point. 2010 Census showed 32,351 housing units in Alameda. 800 is 2.4%. 1425 is 4.4% in additional housing units for an area that takes up one third of the main island. Just to put it into perspective. That is substantially fewer than the 4500 it has been in many times. It's also substantially fewer than the households of Navy and Marine Corps personnel who live there, including myself and my family that lived there in the late seventies and early eighties. This is not an abstract number for me. To move in the right direction in the pursuit of jobs and housing balance, which is talked to directly. It's an excellent move to focus on public transportation in a detailed and concrete manner. In Dr. Hayakawa, his terms. It's a level of specificity that really has meaning. It comes down to the concrete things, and I've just been bounced out. So Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor Marty Rossi, Council Members Ashcraft de SAG and Council Member Audie. It is now time for you all to unanimously endorse your confidence in your planning board, your city staff, the professionals and your community. Thank you for listening.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Bruce Chernoff, 1808 Innocent Street. Hard to follow for previous mayors, mayor, vice mayor and council members. I was working here in 1991 when the base almost was put on a closure list and the previous mayor auto worked very hard to get it off of that list. I played a small role. We were successful for a moment. It was placed on the closure list in 93. And the council at that time, very forward thinking, allocated $1,000,000. $1,000,000 out of its general fund to start planning for closure. And everybody said, isn't that giving up the fight too soon? But the council at that time was forward thinking, believing that investing in bringing together the hopes, wishes and desires of the community and articulating them clearly were the best path forward. Similarly, previous councils over the last several years have, as Jennifer Ott enumerated, 30 public meetings, hundreds of hours of the community invested in establishing certainty for the private sector. In my day job as Director of Asset and Economic Development for the County of Santa Clara, I work with developers and when a community can clearly articulate its expectations , developers know what is being asked. And if they're good developers, they find a way to deliver. And I believe that the impressive list of public benefits that have been enumerated by previous speakers, the ferry terminal, affordable housing investment in infrastructure, TDS plans, are all examples of deliverables that are being offered because Almeida has stood up and said , This is what we want, this is what we expect. My last point is that I don't think you could find a better developer to work with. I personally know Joe Ernst, and I respect him as a man of high integrity. I urge your approval of the staff's recommendation before you tonight.
Speaker 2: 94. 83. Golden State Warriors. Is it over? I thought I'd get that out of the way. You're welcome. For those of you who don't have your phones out.
Speaker 0: Okay, at least give me.
Speaker 2: I know, I know, but I figured I'd let you in on it.
Speaker 0: Why?
Speaker 2: Everybody's like this. Good evening, Mayor. Vice mayor, city council members and city staff. My name is Kathy Mooring. I don't know how I'm already on your.
Speaker 0: I'm going to say you're going to have to give her a little bit more time. Okay. She deserves it.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. You know, there are a lot of emotional issues, but there are also the facts when it comes to site a. The city has long followed a policy that Alameda Point needs to be self-funding, not drain money from the rest of the city. So far, the city has been able to follow that policy, but that is in tremendous jeopardy because Alameda point in its current form is unsustainable. If the city council does not approve site A, the city will have to dip into the general fund to maintain Alameda Point at a cost to other city revenues and other city services . Current business, current businesses produce leasing revenues of approximately 11 to $12 million a year. Many business owners have said they will leave if development and new infrastructure does not occur, since infrastructure failures are interrupting their business. Currently, this isn't a dream. If businesses leave the city, leasing revenues will fall tremendously. Currently, the leasing revenues allow the city to avoid using general fund money for services and repairs at the base. If leasing revenues fall, the general fund will have to be used more. If the general fund is used more often to bail out the base, then one of three things must occur.
Speaker 0: One.
Speaker 2: We must increase taxes. Two. We have to cut services. Police, fire, parks, library, etc.. Or three. A combination of one. Two. As the landowner. The city is responsible for services and liabilities on the base unless private ownership occurs. If Site A is denied, the city will remain responsible for water, sewer, electricity, streets, etc. The homeless shelter and the remaining businesses will require support even if they generate little or no income for the city. The city will continue to be responsible for repairs and liabilities. A recent water main failure cost the city approximately $250,000 to repair, and a communications failure left businesses without Internet services for 3 to 5 days. I don't know any of us who can go for 3 to 5 minutes without our phones. We carry them with us. Imagine your business lifeline being cut. It is with the greatest respect that I urge you to please help move this forward. Vote yes. Let us support the city and our businesses out there. We're all very business friendly. Let's support those businesses and show them that we really do care if they stay or go. And let's support West Alameda and get things moving again. Thank you so much. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council. My name is Patricia Riley. I live in the West End. I took note of the resolution you passed earlier this evening. I realize I'm in the right place because I'm an elder who feels abused by some of the design decisions that have been made in this town recently. Shoreline Drive, which used to be a beautiful scenic avenue, is now a cluttered mess, though friendly to cyclists of the Alameda Landing Project. It's good because it's good to have those stores here, but the place itself is a drab, uninviting design. And because of these two things, I decided to take an interest in the project that's under discussion tonight. And I looked into it and I must say I was very pleasantly surprised. The retail area is going to be an interesting mix of things, not just chain stores, but artisans, craftsmen. The outdoor spaces are wonderful where you can stroll and dine. It's the kind of place I think that's a real destination, sort of place where you would come for an afternoon, have lunch and spend time strolling and shopping in the stores. It has a very special feel to it. Also, the new ferry will be a wonderful and needed addition. We've waited so long for something to happen out there and now something really wonderful has been proposed. And I can only ask if not this.
Speaker 0: What?
Speaker 2: So I urge you to approve the project. It would really be a wonderful addition for the city of Alameda. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 0: And Savalas. And then she's my 10th speaker. So then do you want me to read another set at this point? Because I'm going to read one more set and then these people can start lining up. Robert Del Rosario. Vicky said Sedlak. And cook. And if she's not here, then she said she'll come back. Okay. So that said on the Tony Berg, Andrea's.
Speaker 1: Hover over.
Speaker 0: Build them the maps they see. Really? And lastly, Cameron sent Dean Santner Robert Dowd.
Speaker 6: From that metamorphosis. Perhaps we might read five names at a time, because mathematically, if each of the ten people take 30 minute 3 minutes, that's 30 minutes of standing. Oh.
Speaker 0: This is their suggestion.
Speaker 2: I'll give you.
Speaker 0: Five. And they could also sit down if you get tired. Yes. Some people will be coming from the Elks as my understanding, which is why they want more time.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: You may proceed. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is. And Survivors. I'm a ten year resident of Alameda. And I just briefly wanted to urge you to move this conversation forward. I've been listening to the debate and conversations for over a decade since I moved to Alameda. And it sounds like a great project with a lot of support. And I think it's a really good thing for the city to stop discussing and start moving it forward. So that's my my brief request.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Robert De Rosario, Director of Service Development at AC Transit. So Catch My Breath was running from the alcohol game salon. It's in control of should this project go forward. AC Transit is very committed with working with the developers and the city of Alameda to make sure that there are transit solutions that AC has a can implement to make sure that we participate in reducing the vehicle miles traveled and also the vehicles ongoing in and out of the island. We're partnering with the city of Alameda on a tiger grant to look at transit infrastructure improvements for Albert Point, you me, we're also looking at some near-term improvements as we receive some measure B dollars and we're looking to implement some service improvements on the west side of the island, which will also serve Alameda Point. And we also understand that there's a need for trans based service and having express bus service that goes to San Francisco. And so with a combination of some near-term, mid-term and long term infrastructure improvements as well as service improvements, we really think that we have a good solution to work with the city of Alameda to provide alternate modes of transportation for the city. And for this with this development, we have some funds right now with Measure B, and we're looking at grant funds. And if we can partner with Alameda to look at other grant funds and also work with the developers and actually put in some developer fees. And we think we have some good solutions here to provide good transit for the island and for this development. Finally, I want to add that we have an easy pass program that AC Transit is working with lots of developers on the island to implement. And this would be a prime example of a good E-Z Pass program that could really get people to take transit. So with that, AC Transit is is very supportive of Alameda moving forward with this development and partnering with the city to make sure that there's good transit solutions. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor Spencer, members of the Council. By time I finish, the worries will probably be the national champions with less than a minute left. It's 100 to 92. Thank you. So I cannot resist. We have a chance. Oh, that's. That's good. We have a chance for a big win here tonight, too. Sorry. Can't resist that. Your vote tonight on Saturday and I'm keeping an eye on this is one of the most important if not the most important since I've lived here in Alameda for almost 30 years. And our future is in your hands. I urge you to vote yes on Saturday because of all this plan offers from job creation to replacing the crumbling infrastructure that will attract new businesses and keep existing businesses to more homes, or at least make a bit of a dent in the housing crisis that so many Alameda INS are now facing. And for the new parks, open space, waterfront access and other amenities are all Alameda INS can enjoy also for the potential for a new ferry, terminal shuttles, bike paths and transportation alternatives that will give us alternatives to the automobile. So I urge you to move forward with Side A, as other people said. Right now it's a liability, but we have the opportunity tonight to turn it into an asset. Thank you. And it's still 100 to 92 with 55 seconds left.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor, and members of the City Council. I apologize, first of all, for leaving my phone with my neighbor. So I can't tell you where to go with this, but he'll be soon texting with my husband about it, I'm sure. So my name is Anne Cook, and I'm here before you tonight to speak in favor of this project. I'm a planner by training and passion, and I'm a former member of the planning board. I'm jealous of the other member of the planning board who was here tonight who actually got to sit on the planning board and look at this project and and approve it. I when I was on the planning board, we looked at a lot of waterfront projects, and I found myself in the position of not approving many of them because I found that they just weren't worthy in my mind of the city of Alameda, and they weren't worthy of the waterfront setting . And I'm a waterfront planner by training. I'm back at the Port of San Francisco now doing waterfront planning again. And so I understand how complicated it is and how challenging it is, but also what a responsibility it is to be able to develop on the waterfront. It's very challenging because you have to have sort of two front doors. You have to really consider the site plan around you and you have to figure out how to activate the water front day and night so that the public feels safe using it. If it's just all residential and nobody's there during the day when they're at work, if it's just all commercial and nobody's there on the weekends, you just you need a really healthy mix of users to actually keep it active and safe and interesting and fun to be in a day and night. And what I think is so great about this project is that it really accomplishes all those challenges very, very well. In terms of waterfront transportation, I can speak to the fact that while the city is working so hard here on the transit improvements, particularly the ferry landing, the city of San Francisco is also doing the same, really looking at a second phase of projects along the waterfront at the ferry building to increase the capacity to receive traffic by water, whether it's water, taxis or ferries. And so that's right in step with what the region is doing. And in that sense, this project is also great from a regional planning perspective. And we were able to meet our regional, affordable housing goals. We're able to deal with the greenhouse gas challenges that the city faced with sea level rise through this project and all sorts of regional planning. But it's also a great project from a local perspective for this city. I think it provides a type of housing that we don't have, whether it's condominiums or walkup flats type of stuff that's along the waterfront, right across from us and in Oakland. And we just really haven't had a great depth or variety of housing types, so we haven't had a diversity of affordability of housing as well. So I think this will really help the city. It also helps with our jobs housing balance. And another facet of this is if you look at it from sort of a healthy cities planning perspective, all the newest research on cities shows that if people can walk to their jobs, if they can walk to active transit, if they can walk to their schools and walk everywhere, they will walk and they will be healthier for it. And it's just a really important part of this practice as well. So I thank you very much for listening and I urge you to vote yes for this project. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mayor Spencer and council members. My name is Tony Berg. I'm the president of the Alameda Association of Realtors. The Association of Realtors is committed to equal opportunity housing for all income levels.
Speaker 3: And we feel.
Speaker 1: That this development will.
Speaker 3: Go a long way in providing much needed housing in Alameda. I'm here tonight to let you.
Speaker 1: Know that the Association of Realtors supports Alameda Point Partners and asks that you approve this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council members. My name is Bill DeMar. I'm a local business person here in town. I have either lived or worked in Alameda for over 30 years. I know I look younger than that, though. There is gray in this hair. But I just wanted to come out here to support this project. I believe it's the right project at the right time with the right development team. We've got an opportunity to really see something special happen here. I want to be brief, but I really hope that you guys approve this project. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Hello, Mayor and vice mayor and council. I'm Leslie Cameron, and I'm co-owner of Base Shipping Yacht. We employ about 400 people here in Alameda and we're proud to be celebrating 21 years. And we're also growing. First of all, I'd like to sincerely appreciate the city of Alameda staff and council and the community for doing their due diligence on this project. Everybody. It's really brought their attention to it and it's a great collaborative effort. It's not easy to be a city in California these days, and I'm really proud of Alameda Bay. Shipyard supports development, especially for these reasons. A new ferry terminal at St A will improve bay ships operations. This terminal will open up more room for vessels to maneuver in and out of our bay ship and yacht piers. The developer will also support new infrastructure and providing a water main which will allow us to be closer to that water main. And we also need a water main, so that will bring it one step closer to our facility. We have hundreds of maritime visitors from all over the world coming to our shipyard. It would be so great to have a hotel, lodging and amenities right across the street and we wouldn't have to send them to Oakland as we do. The visitors could come spend their money in Alameda, maybe take a ferry over to San Francisco, ride their bikes back to our yard. I feel very confident that we all can come together to continue to collaborate and refine this plan after it is approved. Thank you so very much.
Speaker 3: Good. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. My name is Glover, Secretary Treasurer of the Alameda County Building Construction Trades Council. And on behalf of our 2228 affiliated unions, we're here in strong support for the development on site. A One of the reasons for that I think really is it is actually a great developer team that we have over the last couple of weeks. We've spent a lot of time together and maybe a little too much time. Joe I think we were negotiating till about 1130 and even though there are a lot of difficult issues on the table and a lot of tough decisions, I think throughout the whole process, it was never antagonistic. We had a bigger goal in mind and the developer, I think, showed a true commitment to make sure that the Labor on this project is going to be skilled labor with with a pathway for local residents to get into the trades and a real commitment for that. So I think it's you know, it's a great team, it's a great project from all the comments that we've had in terms of it's the housing elements, the mixed use development, the transportation oriented. It's not cookie cutter. It's going to be a unique landmark in the city of Alameda. And finally, I think I'm excited about the project labor agreement that we negotiated. I really am. And again, there is a strong commitment there working with community groups in Alameda, community groups on the Naval Air Station, the former Naval Air station, really, and with Alameda City of Alameda in count of Alameda residents to get them working on this project. So I think it'll be a great success. So we strongly urge you to support it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 5: It's 104 to 97 with 10 seconds left.
Speaker 8: Mark Colvin Finally.
Speaker 3: For that matter. Mayor and City Council. Pardon me.
Speaker 2: Can you jump?
Speaker 1: Okay. I'm getting a.
Speaker 3: Little long in the tooth for that one, but thank you very much. You have a long night. Let me just do this very quickly. Perhaps you had a chance to read some of the words that I sent you. I just would like to mention that as a 17 year tenant at Alameda Point, that it's obvious that the place is crumbling and that it's going to be a very expensive situation. If you don't have something in the wings ready to move into place, please approve this. This is a good team. We've. I just can't imagine that we would have better at this point. Thank you very much for your service. Really appreciate your hard choices that you have to make here. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Lucy. Julie Head.
Speaker 1: Is here.
Speaker 0: Hi I'm Lucy G Lee with Spike Walk.
Speaker 2: Alameda and I ran over from over there when it was only three points between them. So I'm with Bike Walk Alameda and we're very excited to finally see tangible movement, housing and infrastructure. They go together and.
Speaker 0: They create a synergy.
Speaker 2: When they're close by that really creates for a livable community. We've been involved in Alameda Point planning for 15.
Speaker 0: Years and believe that these current community created.
Speaker 2: Plans have the most benefit for everyone, not just the people who might live or work at Alameda Point. This development will create roads for users that will connect Alameda to the waterfront at Alameda Point. Driving, walking, biking, public transit integrated and expanded. The sorely needed housing at Eastside is critical if we're going to address the rising rents and accommodate those to live here in Alameda. Additionally, we need that transportation infrastructure that this is going to bring in to round out the rest of the transit for all of the rest of us, ferry service.
Speaker 0: And that's going to benefit everyone.
Speaker 2: And the biking infrastructure, the better walking infrastructure, the close to water, the access to the water will just be help create a better place for all of Alameda. And so we urge the the council to approve the plans. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Robert. Did Robert already speak? You want to come on up?
Speaker 1: Mayor. City Council name Robert Dowd. I've been here city resident for 20 years. Over those 20 years, I've seen plenty of improvements that the city has made. Yet none of those improvements sailed through this city without some type of opposition. Even the theater had opposition. Yet we look at the we look at the theater today, and it's a success. We're happy about it. We're happy that we don't have to leave this city.
Speaker 3: To go watch a movie. Voting yes tonight. Like the theater. And what Alameda Point will.
Speaker 1: Give the city as far as the public amenities.
Speaker 3: The infrastructure, the housing, the retail.
Speaker 1: It, too, will be a success.
Speaker 3: Yes. As a resident.
Speaker 1: For 20 years, we've been talking about this development.
Speaker 3: Every year for the last 20 years. So tonight.
Speaker 1: I just urge you.
Speaker 3: That you can vote yes and celebrate with everyone in the city of what this infrastructure.
Speaker 1: What this improvement will be, will bring to the city. Hopefully, it supplies a place for one of your.
Speaker 3: Sons or daughters that can live in the amenities that will bring that we can all celebrate and use. Vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, our next and I'm going to return because I don't know if you're coming from Alex or not. You don't have to line up now, but please try to expedite it. David Burton. Carrie Thompson. Edward Americans. Andrew Lipka and Riley Chang. Doug Biggs, Sarah Odey, Uri Pachter, Ernest Sanchez and Doyle Thaler. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is David Burton and I'm a member of the Alameda Planning Board. This day is a real milestone for our city, a day that many people have been preparing for with a lot of hard work done over many years. Before you. Tonight is a choice of two futures for Alameda. One is the future with hope and vision. Take flight. The other one is where fear and a lack of vision keep us grounded. My strong hope is that your votes are for hope and vision. As a member of the Planning Board, my focus throughout this long process, along with staff, my fellow board members, the City Council and other boards, has been to craft a plan for Alameda Point that reflects the community's vision and that builds on what is best about Alameda while introducing new concepts and building forms that will help us grow wisely. I would like to thank our smart, hard working staff, especially Jennifer Ott and Andrew Thomas. The city owes them a debt of gratitude for the work that they do. Staff has gone to great lengths to solicit community input. Build on previous community planning efforts and ensure that this plan for Alameda Point reflects the community's vision for this new neighborhood. The plan before you tonight represents that vision very well. As is evidenced by the turnout here tonight. I would also like to thank Joe Ernst and the rest of the Alameda Point Partners team. This team has done a superb job of listening to and developing a plan that reflects community needs and desires. Alameda could not ask for a more responsive development partner. Thanks are also due to all of you for your hard work in shaping the development plan and negotiating the DDA. You have worked hard to get the best plan and agreement for the citizens of Alameda, and we thank you for that effort. This community has waited too long to see a rebirth at Alameda Point. Now we have a plan before us that is very, very representative of the community's vision. This plan will build desperately needed new infrastructure, provide a robust transportation network, build parks, space and other amenities for the whole community, provide much needed housing for our residents, and allow us to begin to attract significant new businesses that will bring much needed jobs to Alameda. Is it perfect? No. But it's about as close as one could hope for. If you do not approve this plan and he will do. Mm. Point to decay and failure for at least a generation. And you will cement for Alameda a reputation as an insular, unfriendly place where you can't do business. Don't let that happen. Let the future take flight at Alameda Point. We are poised for takeoff. Let's show the bay area that we know how to take care of business, that we are a bold and optimistic city, and that we are a beautiful city that knows its history and is ready to write an exciting new chapter. Please vote for a positive future for Alameda. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I've named a lot of names already. I'm going to enter real quick. I'm going to be very honest right now. I looked at the median income of Alameda and it's 75,000 from a year, 2009 through 2013. I would like to hear from speakers in regards to how this plan and staff could put up page 11 serves. This is actually a serious problem for me, how it serves Alameda. And I'm very interested in your feedback on that issue. Thank you. Just for clarification, you're not telling speakers to speak about something other than what they were intending they want to speak about. However, we have a full room. This is an issue that is troubling me, so I would be very interested in hearing feedback on that issue if someone wants to speak to that. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: That was not a very great way for me to begin. Thank you very much. I'm Kerry Thompson. I am the immediate past president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce and the current chairperson of their Government Relations and Economic Development Committee. I am also a lifelong resident of Alameda. I have raised my children here. My mother went lived here. I went to school here, graduated from and now high. So I have a long history with Alameda and I'm very aware of everything that has been happening in the city and understand totally the problems of all income levels. Having experienced all income levels well, except for the high one, that one still escapes me. But I also do want to thank Jennifer Otte and the Staff and City Council for their work, the planning board. Everyone in the community has had a voice in this process, and Alameda Point Partners has clearly demonstrated their willingness to listen, including that slide that mentioned the availability of housing and the rental market for the various income levels. And it was and they had lowered it specifically from what was recommended. My guess is from I don't remember that meeting but from a previous meeting from the city council. So they are listening still. And remember this process, this project is just the beginning. I frankly, I'm so excited that this day has arrived. You have the opportunity and privilege to approve the long overdue redevelopment of Site A at Alameda Point. This is just the first phase to revitalize a long neglected area. This project is part of our state mandated and approved housing element. Site A provides infrastructure which helps the current businesses and residents and also the potential redevelopment of site B. It provides more affordable housing and jobs and is just again the beginning and it is no way a final stamp on the project or on design. But it gives Alameda Point Partners an assurance that the city wants this project and allows them to secure funding to complete a quality project. The city will continue to partner, you know, be an active partner in this project by providing ongoing feedback and oversight. Almeida Partners has shown their listening to us again by that slide earlier that had shown the change that Mayor Spencer noted. And I want to thank you for taking this opportunity to move Alameda in a positive direction. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Andy Slick. 949 Buena Vista Avenue. Also, I'm a representative of the Carpenters Union here in Alameda County. This has been a long time coming. I am excited to be here working with a developer that does understand the value of working families, the creation of jobs and good development. I'd like to give a shout out to Jennifer and her staff, who's done a yeoman's job in bringing this process forward to where we are today. You all have a great opportunity to really turn the naval base here in Alameda into a destination. This is the first step. There's a long way to go, but I know you will do the right decision. We're talking about good jobs, good development and opportunities for careers in construction. So I encourage you to support this plan and move forward. Thank you.
Speaker 2: That evening. Mayor Spencer and City Council members. My name is Pam Riley. Chang and I moved to this lovely city in 1993 with my husband and young children. I am here to speak for those.
Speaker 0: Children who are now.
Speaker 2: Grown and their friends. Yes. And. The kids are out of college now. They're working. They're finding jobs are easier to find than apartments. They want to live in Alameda. They look at the city. And now that's totally that's just a dream. But this is a town they love and they're savvy. They know apartment dwelling means having roommates. They know it's workable. And as my older son said, so if this doesn't pass and there's no apartments, how is that better than several hundred? We raised our children here. We educated them here. Are we going to tell them they can't live here? Thank you.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council members. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative. And I'm absolutely delighted to discard by prepared statements to be able to address your questions concerning the affordability component of this. This is something I've given a lot of thought to have some experience in that having operated housing for homeless families for the last 12 years, currently serving on the Social Service Human Relations Board and conducting a quality of life assessment in the community where we're finding the issue of housing is traumatizing people. This project is going to address that in a couple of different ways. First off, housing stock is so limited any housing will help. You're currently seeing people who used to be renting one bedroom and who better? If they're renting a two bedroom, they're now doubling up, going to a one bedroom. If they're renting a one bedroom, they're now going down to a studio that is squeezing the bottom level out. Freeing up any type of housing at all will help to relieve that pressure cooker a little bit. The affordability mixed in this housing is admirable. It covers from the very low to the affordable to the mid to upper level. You need that type of diversity. Also, in addition to that, the jobs component to this is very important and I'm thrilled that we're talking about jobs with a livable wage. Thanks to the play, our residents who are living out there and I represent 500 resident of Alameda Point who have been waiting since 1999 for the dream of a diverse, vibrant community to be fulfilled after housing. The thing that's most important to them is jobs. Affordable housing should be a step in the journey to self-sufficiency. You can't get all that way without the jobs that go along with it. And I'm thrilled that Jordan has done a lot of work to make sure that this development includes sustainable, livable wage jobs. Lastly, you can't just talk about new housing and ignore the needs of the existing housing that's out there. All of you have been out to Alameda Point. You've seen the condition of those buildings out there. I also know that all of you live in wonderful, vibrant communities. With an infrastructure you don't even think about at night because it works so well. If you're thinking of saying no to this project and for anyone here in the audience that's advocating a no vote. Put yourself next to the children. The women who are survivors of domestic violence. The veterans who have given so much in the wars that are living out there now, living next to blighted, decrepit, unsafe housing, tell them you know what? You don't deserve bitterness. You don't deserve the type of community I live in. You deserve to live in a place where the infrastructure is so bad. You get raw sewage coming up on a regular basis. You deserve to live in a place is so bad the buildings are falling down around you because a no vote tonight is equivalent of saying you don't matter out there, please do the right thing. For Alameda point and for all of alameda and vote yes on this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Sarah Oddy and I grew up here in Alameda and.
Speaker 0: I came back because it is a great place to live and a great place to.
Speaker 2: Grow up. And I would love to.
Speaker 0: Raise a family here in Alameda someday. And I believe site offers that.
Speaker 2: Chance to build that part.
Speaker 0: Of my life because of the diverse, affordable housing.
Speaker 2: Which would because many millennials do not make enough money to afford market.
Speaker 0: Place housing.
Speaker 2: Unless you work in tech. And with the diverse affordable housing site. A I.
Speaker 0: Believe that we do have.
Speaker 2: A chance to build our lives here in Alameda.
Speaker 0: And like many others of my generation, I make the vast majority of my choices based on.
Speaker 2: Ease of access to biking, walking and public transportation. So I'm pleased to see the increase in transit services and infrastructure in this plan. I'm excited that you have an opportunity to move forward on one of the great debates now in media that has been around for most of the time, if not all of the time that I've lived here. And I urge you to approve site as an investment in this future for generations to come.
Speaker 1: Madam Mayor, council members. My name is Ernest Sanchez, and I'm with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority. We are distributing a letter from our executive director. Nina rattles.
Speaker 3: In support of the development of Site A and.
Speaker 1: On behalf of the Water Emergency Transportation Authority. I'd like to say that whether it is excited about the development of some more homes and community near in West.
Speaker 3: Alameda, where we have a successful and thriving ferry service, and we look forward to working with the city to explore ways to expand ferry service from the west end of Alameda. As you know, these WTA operates the San Francisco Bay Ferry, and we're happy to say that we do provide transportation for a significant number of Alameda residents , both from Harbor Bay and from Alameda Main Street to, of course, San Francisco, Oakland and South San Francisco. And we look forward to continuing that partnership. And with all respect, we urge an approval of this proposal. Thank you. An evening. Mayor. Vice Mayor, the councilmembers. My name is Audrey Pachter and I'm with Green Belt Alliance. We protect the region's open spaces from development and encourage thriving neighborhoods. That can be amazing places for everyone. We're really pleased to endorse Alameda Point Partner Site, a development proposal. It's a prime example of sustainable and equitable development that's transit oriented.
Speaker 1: Site proposal calls for redeveloping an.
Speaker 3: Underutilized brownfield site with new homes at a range of incomes and creating a walkable, transit friendly neighborhood with a vibrant mix of homes, shops, offices and open.
Speaker 1: Space. Site helps address the region's housing crisis by providing opportunities for healthy living for.
Speaker 3: Residents and workers, supporting the local economy and relieving development pressure on the region's open spaces. 25% of new homes will be affordable, ensuring an inclusive community in which residents across the socioeconomic spectrum benefit from these investments. So it will be sensitively designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve energy through habitat restoration and the repurposing of existing structures.
Speaker 1: So they will have smart design elements that will make walking and biking safe and.
Speaker 3: Comfortable with wide sidewalks, protected bikeways and new connections to the Bay Trail. Alameda Point Partners will contribute towards a new ferry terminal and provide a last mile connection to BART.
Speaker 1: These transportation these transportation.
Speaker 3: Choices will improve community health, minimize time stuck in.
Speaker 1: Traffic, help ease the strain on a regional transportation network and reduce air pollution. Alameda Point is one of the largest remaining developable pieces of land in the inner bay area. It's essential that we use this land wisely by providing a compact.
Speaker 3: Walkable community.
Speaker 1: So it provides significant environmental, social and economic benefits to Alameda and the Bay Area at large. Therefore, Greenbelt Alliance enthusiastically.
Speaker 3: Endorses Alameda Point City as a smart.
Speaker 1: First step towards the long awaited redevelopment.
Speaker 3: Of Alameda to form a naval station. We strongly encourage you to approve this great development proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'm going to read the next set of speakers that Lenny Jerry, 70, Mark Sorenson. Victor Bell, lanky Gabriel Dolphin. Lois Prior. Michael McDonagh, My Canterbury. Preston Dewar broke ground. All right. You may continue. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Madam Mayor, members that are on the city council and people of alameda. I'm the oil sailor with renewed hope. I'm proud to read a statement from Renewed Hope. Renewed Hope. Housing advocates is very proud to be here tonight. Urge you your vote to approve the site plan for Alameda Point. We are excited by the prospect of building 200 affordable units for seniors and families in what promises to be a dynamic and groundbreaking new Alameda neighborhood. This project is the result of years of work by many dedicated and selfless citizens who want to see the old naval base developed in a manner that benefits the entire city in its early years. The process did not fully encompass the values of sustainable transportation policy and affordable housing that this current plan does. The notion of linking of housing, jobs and transportation as a key to community stability and health is far more recognized today than it was in the 1990s. It is striking to see this town. Unite around a project to see it, recognize that good design offers a continuation of the esthetic legacy of its beautiful neighborhoods. To see it embrace the commitment to car alternatives. And, most importantly, to see our meetings reject the exclusivity it used to cling to and even see site A as a badge of honor and a call instead for housing justice. Yes, our meetings are calling for a housing. They want it for their children, their vulnerable relatives, friends and neighbors. They no longer will tolerate the idea that renters are second class citizens, nor of that same natural law. The free market makes economic displacement fair. They expect some action on this crisis, not resignation from city leaders. The 25% requirement for this project, which renewed hope, helped to bring about, well, mark this city as a leader regionally in creating affordable housing. We expect other communities will follow our example, and we should be very proud of that. Your vote tonight will send a very loud signal that Alameda knows how to create projects that are not giveaways to developers, but bold and shrewd, multifaceted plans that aim at strengthening economic and social stability for the whole city. Thank you. And Mayor.
Speaker 0: Yes, I'm shocked.
Speaker 6: Mr. Mayor, if I could just address a certain question that you raised about the $75,000 median income. Just quickly, you know, in this the way that the the agreement with the Alameda Point Partners runs and the affordable housing agreement, which is all of 130 pages, is when we're qualifying people for the affordable components, whether it's the low income units or the moderate income units. And this is standard practice when it comes to affordable housing. We're using basically the area median income, which is a county number, which is also adjusted for size. So in Alameda County household size, in Alameda County, if you're a one person household and your income is is $75,000. In other words, if you're a one person resident in Alameda, the city of Alameda, and your income is $75,000, i.e. your income is synonymous with the citywide median. You are by definition a moderate income person. So you would benefit by this because the income range for moderate income or a one person household ranges anywhere from. 50,151. 78,500. So if you fall within that range of 50 from 51000 to 78000, then and you're you're and then you fall. Then you are, by definition, a moderate income person. Now, if your income is, as you had raised 75,000, you're still moderate. Likewise for a two person household. Maybe there's a mother and one child, or maybe maybe there's two adults living together because the income ranges are adjusted for family household size. A moderate income at the moderate income range to qualify for for a moderate income unit. You would have to make your household would have to make anywhere between 57,380 9750 for two person households. So that means if you're a if you live in Alameda and you're a two person household, you have two people in your household, whether it's two adults or one adult and one child, and your income is 75,000. And again, you are moderate. So. You know, the point of of the moderate income is to get exactly at, you know, the lower echelon of the of the, you know, the workforce families that renewed hope has been talking about all these years. But I do believe that that we have with regard to moderate income families, that we have a project that that does speak to to the moderate income. And anyone in Alameda whose income is $75,000.
Speaker 0: And I appreciate that my concern goes to the distribution of the units.
Speaker 2: Or.
Speaker 6: More what you want more you.
Speaker 0: So when you look at the high end, actually more than half. So that was my concern and that's actually what I'm hoping to get responses and we have had some responses and I appreciate that. But the distribution overall, the 800. Great.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, next speaker.
Speaker 6: Thank you for your indulgence.
Speaker 1: Good evening. And it feels like a full court press tonight here on the council.
Speaker 0: Probably have.
Speaker 1: To do. I'm Doug Linehan, representative board member for Alameda on the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Tonight I want to address concerns about water supply for l made a point of view. We all know there's no such thing as a free throw. I mean, a free lunch. And that's what good planning pays off.
Speaker 2: Funny guys.
Speaker 1: Thanks to foresight and careful planning. East Bay Municipal Utility District is still able to offer water hookups for new housing throughout our district boundaries the next few decades. Even though with the 2015 drought, East Bay mud provides water to 1.4 million people in Alameda and Contra Costa counties in anticipation of population growth. East Bay mud began water resources planning decades ago. That foresight enabled cities to plan for new housing and with sufficient water supplies. Not because there's more water, but because of improved planning requirements of water efficient technologies. Because of changes in demographics and technology like low water showerheads and toilets, efficient dishwashers and close washers, water use within our district boundaries have remained relatively constant. Customers now use 177 million gallons per day, and that's similar to what they used in 1990. That means more people are using less water per person than when the base closed 20 years ago. In addition to water conservation, Eastport has worked hard to add new drought water supplies. For example, East May, what is being completed the Free Port Regional Water Project, which delivers a new source of water from the Sacramento River. It was completed in 2010. This project is currently helping us minimize additional customer water rationing. But also some new housing developments are better than others when it comes to water use. Well planned and higher density developments like side eight require less water because the yard sizes are smaller than most suburban developments, which have large lawns and require more water. In addition, the developers plan to use drought tolerant vegetation in public areas and highly efficient irrigation systems. As the Bay Area continues to accommodate its economic success with housing to accommodate new people, City is a great example of the type of projects and development. We want to see a project that provides the highest efficiencies and lowest per capita use of water. It's important to note that as an infill project site was once occupied by users that due to their inefficiencies, had higher water demands than residential customers and site is likely to use less water than the users it replaces from 20 years ago. Finally, by paying for water infrastructure to serve the former base, new water infrastructure site will save hundreds of thousands of gallons of water from the old and decrepit leaking pipes and broken water mains that exist today. Having enough water takes planning and cooperation is been what is fortunate that the cities and counties in its service area have worked with these submerged to ensure that there's enough water for now and in the future. The Board of Directors has not taken a position on this project, but I personally support site. The night you have a chance to score a triple double, not just a three pointer. Thank you. Thank you very.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Jerry, 70, and I live in the West End and I'd like to start by saying I'd like to thank on behalf of my neighbors, we'd like to thank Joe Ernst and Jennifer Ott for taking time to come meet with us. It was a very small group one evening, and it really showed us that they cared about what we as citizens of Alameda and residents of the West and really think about what they're doing. And it really shows what they're doing. You know, that they've taken a lot of time and effort to develop a plan that looks at housing and how it's distributed. So it does. Cut across the Board of Economics, who creates basically what the city is, who's got low income, moderate income. It's got some high income market rate housing. It's what we are is a city and it has to do that. It touches into what's really important out there at the base. Infrastructure's falling apart. I used to work over the Port of Oakland and we took over. I was responsible for redoing the Navy base in Oakland and we used to lose a million gallons of water a month for the leaks in that system. And we would fix pipes and it would still leak. We'd fix utility lines and it was still leak. We worked to move the sewer that went from the Navy base here in Alameda over to the sewage treatment plant in Oakland because we couldn't drive on it because it was falling apart. We know it's no better over here. We got to do something here. This project will fix a lot of that stuff. It will allow new development to occur. It'll allow the businesses to develop out at the base. That will then help the people that have lower income in this city. The transit development that they will occur here will give those people opportunities to leave the island if they want to work off the island. And the new businesses will give them opportunities to stay on the island and work on the island in a manner that they don't need vehicles. What we're looking for here is not to let the base just exist. We want to see the point be once again the pride of Alameda. Please vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening, Madame Mayor and vice mayor and city council members. It's good to see you. I have never spoken before here and I can't speak as knowledgeably on the specifics and certainly not as eloquent eloquently as, say, Mr. Big spoke about the housing need in Alameda. And anecdotally, Mayor Spencer, I don't have statistics on how it would affect Alameda, but I know that my son is ostracized right now over in Oakland because he can't afford to live.
Speaker 0: We're going to have to just the time. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Oh, it's going to pass and I'll just not apply to you.
Speaker 2: There you go. So what do I do?
Speaker 0: Go ahead. Oh, okay. Adjustment.
Speaker 2: So. So just two things that have been on my heart. And the first is it has to do with non movement not moving forward in the sense that I believe that not moving forward at this time will set the city back on its heels. And the reason I feel this to be true is that in a sense, and I don't mean to be overly dramatic here at all, but in a sense it would fly in the face of democratic process because so many the majority, as I understand it, of this city really would love to see this go forward. Not the final plan. Lots of tweaks can be made, but love to see motion forward at this point. And the second reason why it might set the city on its heels is that to not move forward flies in the face of an overwhelming sensitivity and goodwill from all sides that has been shown this over the, what, 20 years? There is such a thing as goodwill when you're working with others trying to create something in community and to not move forward at this time that feels so ripe would take pick the wind out of the sails and or, as I say, set us back on our heels. And then also to not move forward at this unprecedented moment is to, in a sense, thumb our nose at what I believe to be a flagship industry, standard green, sustainable community that can be ours. It could be another jewel in the crown of Alameda for current residents, but more so for those coming along behind us, our children . The second thing that I'd like to say, just put on the record, it's a thought that has weighed heavily on me because it's it's easy to hear there. There is. A feeling out there that by moving forward with sight, it's going to destroy this city in some way. Some say that this just isn't the Alameda we knew. And, you know, I'm a child of the sixties and I have my my old fashioned ways, whatever they may be. And my response to that, as I've pondered it long and hard, is it isn't the Alameda I knew. And it shouldn't be. At least not in this way. Social and economic stresses, demographic changes, OS traffic and climate change, for goodness sake, are all challenges impacting not only us locally but regionally, state and nationwide? As we know, these matters are ignored at our own peril, and that peril could be just as simple as an old, dusty parking lot out there on one third of our city land. Change is inevitable. We are offered. You guys are offered this extraordinary opportunity to step up to the plate. Or maybe it's the who. Whatever you step up to in basketball tonight to manage load with local vision, wisdom and compassion. Make no mistake. Vision, wisdom and compassion have been key ingredients thus far in creating this plan. The vote tonight must not be a vote for the way things were or are, but for a vote for what is possible for the generations to come. Thank you very much. I'm Lois Pryor, a member of Renewed Hope. And we are of course interested in housing and cite a will provide a variety of much needed housing for all ages, all income levels, different sizes of families. And besides that, it's the only, only development site that will have rental among the the market rate housing. And this is a great development which will make it possible for a lot of people who not there are many people that can never buy a house but can rent. And I think this is going to be really a wonderful thing. They're also they've committed to repair the infrastructure, the the worn out, falling apart, nonfunctioning, just functioning infrastructure. And. This is actually the housing and the infrastructure site A is the key to the development of Alameda Point. And without it, we won't be able to attract new businesses and the businesses and residents that are already there. There are so many people actually living there trying to function with the worn out infrastructure of the roads that are a mess. And you know all of this.
Speaker 1: This.
Speaker 2: So it. Well, as I said, it'll be the key to human development, to finishing up what we have begun. And I feel that this vote might be the most important vote that you guys will ever make. And I urge you to vote yes. This. This is your opportunity. Rabbit, go with it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I'm Mark Sorenson, executive director for the Chamber of Commerce. And I sent you a letter to all the members on the board.
Speaker 3: Last week and to the mayor urging you to go ahead with this plan endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and our business associates that we're dealing with. And I got to thinking tonight, everyone has said so much of the same thing, but I was thinking when I was had another job one time, I used to always sit around and do projects and my projects had to always be perfect. So a lot of my projects never got rolled out until one day my boss came to me and said, What is your problem? Don't you realize it does not have to be perfect to be good? And in this case, we have city staff.
Speaker 1: We've got Jennifer Ott. We have done just a remarkable job of bringing the facts to the council. We have a man who lives in Alameda who has a stellar reputation for everything that he does. You have years and months of community input and now it's your time to do your job.
Speaker 3: And it once again, it doesn't have to be perfect to be good. It can be built on, it can be changed. It can be modified as you go along. But there has to be a starting point. And here tonight, you have the opportunity to start it. And I urge you on behalf of myself and the Chamber of Commerce in Alameda that you go ahead with this program and vote yes. Thank you very much. And I want to be like Jennifer Ott when I grow up, because I admire what she does so much.
Speaker 1: Madame Mayor. Council members. My name is Vic Roland. My wife Karen and I.
Speaker 3: Are the owners of STV Services and on Ireland's small and service disabled better known business. I really envy you guys because you've got a vote that you can make tonight unanimously. That is epic and it seems to have been well thought, well fought with lots of moving parts coming together and all to the benefit of the community . Looking through the lens of a.
Speaker 1: Of a small and veteran owned business. You're giving life to say they will create business opportunities for companies like mine. Needless to say. That growth creates jobs that will enable us to achieve our company's hiring goals of offering well-paying, benefited employment to as many Alameda residents and veterans underscore as possible. These may very well be some of the same people who enjoy a high quality of life near their work raising their families in this island neighborhood. And I have not heard that word used tonight. Neighborhood You're creating a neighborhood with affordable housing, with infrastructure, with transit, with all of the things that come together to make a place where somebody can say, that's where I grew up. That's I think that's astonishing. Not a lot of cities can do that. With with with the apparent unanimity of thought and skill that went into this.
Speaker 3: Companies that I've been associated with have been on Ireland since 1987.
Speaker 1: I began my naval career reserve in regular service in 1973 at NASA and finished it in 97 when when the base closed, were committed to and invested in Alameda. The point needs new life. You've got it. You've got a Bay Area treasure that unless you make a unanimous vote tonight, it's going to continue to be basically a Rust Belt icon. So I encourage you to make this choice, to make this decision unanimously. And I.
Speaker 3: I thank you for your time and attention. Good evening, Mayor, Vice mayor, council members and city team. My name is Preston Dula and I'm a member of.
Speaker 1: The Carpenters in Action Carpenters Union.
Speaker 3: And also a. I live here in Alameda. And this is.
Speaker 1: What a great place to be. And a great time to be here. I want to thank you for allowing the.
Speaker 3: Ferry Boat Terminal Project to proceed, and I'm looking forward to being.
Speaker 1: Part of that. My life has been a community improvement projects.
Speaker 3: For instance, the new library a half a block away. One of the projects I got to work on, and it's really been an honor to do those type of things. Looking forward to. Being to be an honor to be on or this new project. It's some of the work that'll be happening over here. And I really think that that's going to a. Catapult the economy here and let me get a few of them out of work. Work and the business that that'll bring to the local business people. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor Spencer. Vice Mayor Maher receive members of the City Council City Staff. My name is Mike Canterbury. I resided 2811 Otis Drive with my family. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak before you tonight. I come before you to ask you to vote yes, to proceed with the development of the Naval Air Station by authorizing the proposal before you for city. As a lifelong Alameda, I grew up with the Naval Air Station as a constant presence. That presence had its ups and downs, but it's always been here. It's been part of town, part of growing up and living in Alameda. After it closed, Alameda lost a big part of its history and vitality. It's time to bring back that vitality and vote to move forward on a. As an alum, Eden, I ask you to vote to move forward on Saturday. The project has been through the mill at the planning board. Many meetings have been held, presentations have been done, and most importantly, testimony has been given by the citizens of Alameda. There have been some disagreements in some quarters on some details, but I'm confident that the great majority of Alameda in support moving forward, the unanimous vote of the planning board was indicative of the consensus on the issue. As Planning Board President, I urge you to move forward on site a. The project respects the past and lays out a framework for the future development of the rest of the base. During construction, the project will provide quality union building trades. Jobs in the plans hold the potential for good union jobs in the hotel and retail grocery industry. As you know, when the base closed, it left a huge void in employment opportunities on the West End. Moving forward with the development of Site A will create jobs in construction, hotel retail and they are all sorely needed. In addition, jobs be created in a range of other professions, from tech to artisan to professional professional pursuits. And who knows what else? The sky is the limit. There will be jobs to support the needs and talents. Many almeida's as a working person and as a union rep, as president of the planning board, as an alameda. I urge you to move forward on site. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor and rest of the Council. City. City Staff. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. I'm sure it's no secret the way that I feel about this. I've been before the board here many times to the point where I think that you could probably tell me what I was going to say before I even say it. So I decided to take a different tack tonight because I think that it needs a little shaking up from my standpoint. And you've heard all these wonderful reasons. I know that each of you have your own concerns between traffic, between infrastructure, between the amount of affordable housing. And I can't tell you, you know, what you're thinking inside after hearing all of this great testimony. I can say, though, I know that you're the mayor of the people and that's what you ran on. That's what you want to be and that's what you really are. The accessibility to the people is what you really are and bring to us as mayor. And I am proud to say that I am speaker number 40 and out of all 40 there has not been a know. Every single one has been a yes. And as representatives of our great little town, here is all of your responsibilities to listen to the people, not just the mayor, but all of them. And so, though we all have concerns, we've heard that there's no such thing as a perfect project. You can't please everybody all of the time. I think that we have heard from a very good mix of all incomes tonight. So the proof is right here in the audience. There's a lot of opinions, but the proof is right here. We've had young people, low income people, older people, low income people, probably even some high income people, and they're all for it. I think that is the proof that this works for all income levels. And I also believe that there's there's a degree of optimism that will help those lower income people increase their income. There'll be jobs available that hopefully will give them opportunity to rise above where they are today. There's a lot of ways this project will will be able to benefit people of all income levels. And I know that when we when we're taking tallies is 40 to nothing. But tonight, you know, we've heard from experts in fields of waterfront planning. We've heard I have never heard planning board members come up here and urge the council to take a vote. They usually do that by their own vote, and they voted unanimously, unanimously for this project. And yet they're here again tonight to urge you personally to pass this. I think that's unprecedented. But we've heard from past leaders, elder statesmen of Alameda also that worked on this for seems like more than 20 years. I thought it was only about 20 years. But but there are a lot of people that have worked on this that passing this really passes on the legacy that they tried to establish right on to you. And I think that's an awesome honor for you guys to have. But, you know, we also know that Ben Franklin is one of our country's finest statement and considered one of the wisest men. I'll be through. And just one.
Speaker 0: Thing.
Speaker 3: You when Ben Franklin was was faced with a decision like you have to make tonight, he had a really easy way of just making his decision. And what he would do is take out a piece of paper and draw a line down the middle and on one side, right? Yes. And on the other side. Right? No. And then he would list the reasons for yes and list the reasons for no. And I was going to stand here and list all 50 reasons that I wrote down that were for. Yes, but I'm out of time. I can't do that. You've heard those, though. I don't need to do that. But we have heard a couple of concerns, the amount of of middle to low income homes and the traffic issue. So we've got like 50 on the yes side and two on the north side. There probably is going to be people after me, I'm sure, in the audience that have nos. I see a lot of green buttons, but I'm sure there's a couple that will be on that no side. But I think the decision's easy when you think about the way Ben Franklin makes decision. One of the wisest men of our in our nation's history, 52 to 40 to nothing. It's a pretty easy decision. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. We have another set of ten. But at this point, I'm going to call for a recess and we're going to take a approximately five minute recess. Thank you. Because if everyone can return to your seats, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. I want to start calling the new names.
Speaker 0: Michael Williams, Alan Pryor. Pamela Tozer. John Spangler. Irma Garcia. Heather Chacon. Sue Ann Hannigan. Alexandra Kohn Byron and Cheryl's book, Tie Hudson, and those are the next speakers. Thank you very much. And how many more do we have after this year? You have an estimate possibly.
Speaker 2: After that ten, there's an additional.
Speaker 0: 15 an okay. And if you have not turned in your speak but speaker slip but you'd like to speak please consider turning it in. Thank you. All right. Let's continue. Thank you. Michael Williams. Alan Pryor, Pamela Tozer, any of those speakers? Can someone, anyone that's lined up a view can come to the mic and we can just start going? That'd be great.
Speaker 2: Andrew But are there still.
Speaker 0: People in the hall? And I had. Come on. Let's do.
Speaker 1: It. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Mayor. Vice mayor, council people. Thanks. I'm just mostly concerned that this gets through. I know a little bit about infrastructure and stuff like that. Where I work, we've got old pipes and you turn on the water and it comes out all rusty and it doesn't look very good. We get a break and in a big eight inch pipe. And at first you have to find the break in while you're looking for the break. You're losing millions of gallons of water. And then when you do find it, you have to dig it up, put some kind of a patch on it or replace the pipe. But you have to be able to find a piece of paper is thick enough to connect to, you know, and out there, the pipes have been in there for 70 years and they're just not you know, there's nothing left of them. And that goes with the electrical and and the sewer and everything. It's just it's all old. And this is you know, they're going to provide new infrastructure out there in that section. And it's it's just we've got to do something out there. It's been a long time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: If you can please say your name before you speak. That'd be great. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Greetings, Mayor. Council and staff. My name is Pamela Tozer. I have lived and worked in Alameda for ten years and in 2020 11, I became a single mother. And in November of that year my daughter then eight and I became homeless for the next three months through the holidays. She and I shared a bed in the homes of generous Alameda friends for over three years now. We have been deeply grateful to have our own very small place in which we still share a room and a bed. She is now 12 years old, five foot five and £125. No need to ask if my preteen would like her own space. My current rent is now more than half my income, which is also more than a proposed the proposed rent for a two future two bedroom at site a. I am delighted with the many magnificent innovations provided by Alameda Point Partners, and more innovations will come as invention. As necessity is the mother of invention. So please vote yes for site A and affordable housing so that I may please have my bed back to myself. Thank you for your service.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much for sharing your story. Appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor. Council members, staff members and everybody who's still in this room. Thank you for hearing us out. My name is Heather Shanklin. I am a Alameda resident. I'm your neighbor. If you're a resident, if you're a business owner, I'm your customer. If you approve site A, hopefully when you approve, say I might even be one of your architects. I have the great fortune to live and work in Alameda. I'm a renter here in town and I'm in the demographics that you're concerned about. So I, too, am very concerned about maintaining affordable housing. I dedicate my my my academic career and my professional career to designing and building sustainable and affordable homes. The firm that I work for, Ignition Architecture, actually specializes in affordable and senior housing, and we're positioned to potentially participate in this project moving forward. So we're very excited about that opportunity. I'm excited both professionally and personally because I think that there's tremendous opportunity. And opportunity is a word that I've heard many people here use here tonight. And I really hope that you take that to heart, because this is it's so exciting to see this happen in my own community and to possibly be able to have a hand in my own community in building the kind of sustainable, transit oriented mixed use and affordable housing and commercial development that we truly do need here. It gives me hope, actually, looking at that map of potential housing spread that actually is helpful to me because right now I don't see any opportunity to not be a renter ever. And that to me looks like there's diversity, there's opportunities no matter what end of the spectrum I personally end up on and many other people in this community. So I urge you to vote yes. And there's so much support here tonight. I've never actually been to a council meeting with so much support for a development. This is truly incredible. So thank you for your time. Good evening. My name is Alexandra Cohn. Madam Mayor, as you know, having participated in Alameda High School grad night the other night this week or last week , Alameda High School class of 2015 graduates closed a chapter of their lives and will now embark on a new one. The City of Alameda has the opportunity to do the same with the former Naval Air Station. I hope these graduates can return one day to live and work in the homes and businesses in this new chapter of Alameda. As today, we have the opportunity. Many of us here tonight have dreamed about for the past 19 years. Our neighbor Oakland same for the city is for their city is dream big. I spoke about this at the planning commission and I wanted to speak about it again. They have experienced many issues in the past years that have made the headlines around the world. Yet they had a vision. Dream big. They have pulled together and are seeing this vision come to fruition between the renovations of the old buildings on Broadway into housing and restaurants, to the recently announced news that Sunset Magazine is moving their headquarters into Jacqueline and Square, leaving their Menlo Park headquarters after 61 years. And this was not a decision to be made lightly. One cannot deny that these are certainly exciting times for Oakland, but we don't have to be the forgotten stepchild across the water. Yes, there have been opportunities we have missed, but now is our chance to dream big. You have before you a great team with a great game plan that I believe every time Alameda residents and you the government have asked for something, the team has gone back to the drawing board to make it work. It is certainly certainly has not been an easy road to follow. Many might have thrown in the towel by now. The dedication and the willingness this team has shown to work through every challenge that has been thrown in their way is undeniably stellar. Thankfully, they have not given up on their big dream for Alameda today and for the generations to come. I urge you to give the 2015 graduates and your own children away at college a reason to come back to Alameda to see the great changes that we together have made tonight to start the next chapter of everyone's lives . Thank you. Hmm. Hmm, hmm. Hmm. Good evening. My name is Sue Ellen Hennig, and I've lived in Alameda for the past nine years. I have two children that attend Alameda Public Schools, and I work in Alameda as well. My husband and I moved to Alameda only knowing a handful of people that lived here in the past nine years. We have come to call Alameda home. I love so many things about our town, including walkable neighborhoods, excellent schools, diversity, and a strong community spirit. I lived in Alameda both as a renter and as a homeowner, and I witnessed the demand for housing increase and prices rise. It concerns me that families with high incomes are the only ones that can afford to buy here now. It concerns me that the demand for rental housing is severe and competitive and has forced them to leave town for elsewhere. Alameda has a tremendous opportunity to develop new housing on site. I support the thoughtfulness of the design, which fosters community spirit by putting housing units in a walkable neighborhood with transit hubs, retail and outdoor space. I appreciate the care that has been put into making the most of the gorgeous bay views and waterfront access. I appreciate the intention to reuse several existing buildings and preserve some of the character of the naval base that existed there before. I grew up in the city of Chicago, and I've seen the results of unregulated growth and gentrification and how it can completely transform neighborhoods, often making them lose the spirit and character of before. We all know change in some way is inevitable, but change that is careless does not have to be an essential part of it. This design is thoughtful, embracing the past history of the site, capturing the community oriented spirit of our island town, and providing us some relief by delivering housing which we so badly need. The neighborhood where I grew up is no longer affordable to live in. By common standards, I don't want the same thing to happen to my own children in this in this town that they have grown to love and call their home. I support development at Alameda Point Site A.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Vice may remit arrested members of the council and staff. I'm John Spangler. I've lived in Alameda since 1997 and I have lost track of how many dozens of meetings I have gone to and been to to put in my 3 minutes worth on Alameda point. This, certainly, I hope. The last one for siding, at least for approval. We don't need 105 points tonight. We need four votes from you. And I hope we're going to see that. Beverly Johnson was right. You could be the luckiest council in years in Alameda. You've heard all the good reasons. I'm going to give you three. Choose one. Any one of them is sufficient for your yes vote. Number one 800 new housing units. Over 600 of them rental units. These are the units that employers need to see here in Alameda. Before they will come and work on site be. To. Having the new infrastructure water, sewers, electrical, internet, the support base, ship and yacht. All the businesses in Spirit's Alley and all the businesses. We want to come here. Three. The Transportation Plan and Transportation Management Plan. Bus Rapid Transit Ferry Terminal Bike Facilities. As Lewis eagerly elucidated very, very well earlier to make Alameda safer, less congested and healthier. That by itself is good enough to say yes. To say tonight. So I'm looking forward to your yes vote very soon or soon as the rest of us are done. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor and city council and city staff. My name is Itamar Garcia. And I have been a. One of the first civilians at Alameda Point. Our company moved here 16 years ago. Well, 1988, right after the Navy left. And I'm now it's my third home in Alameda Point. I'm now at the former admiral's house. As you know, it's a historic home. And I'm sad to hear that it has not been taken care of as we as we wish it would of. Our company was one of the first companies at Hangar 20 where Mattias Auctions is now. Every resident in this city has benefited from our rent, not just our rent, which is about $1,000,000, but also all the residents and businesses in Alameda Point. And and yes, we do need infrastructure. I mean, I know I, I've been there for 16 years anyway. I'm a big supporter. I have so much to say. I'm a big supporter of affordable housing. And I love the proposal that. I'll meet a partners house. I have worked with Congresswoman Barbara Lee for 15 years in this effort. I love Jennifer Odd. She is truly a class act, eloquent and a great example of city staff anyhow. And and I agree with most of the proposal. Like I said, I would like to see more of a better transit oriented solution and something like a ultra light rail group, Rapid Transit, like Cyber Train International. So I want to say thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening. Mayor and City Council. My name is Ty Hudson. I'm with Unite Here Local 2850. The president of the local whaling Huber was going to be here to talk to you tonight but had a last minute family issue. So I'm pinch hitting. It's the wrong sports metaphor. I'm sorry. We we represent hotel workers and food service workers in the East Bay, including many who live here in Alameda and work at hotels in Oakland and restaurants at the Oakland Airport and the Oakland Coliseum and Oracle Arena, where about 15,000 people paid a lot of money to watch basketball game on Earth on television today. So and the way when we look at development, we're always looking at not only is it going to provide jobs, but what kind of jobs is it going to provide and is it going to provide good jobs like those that our members have that have decent wages and good benefits that allow people to support their families and and and have a good life? Or are they going to provide minimum, minimum wage, poverty, jobs that too many too many of the are service sector jobs and jobs in general are which as you know, just created the the crisis of income.
Speaker 6: Inequality in our country.
Speaker 3: And we know that in order to create good jobs, workers have to have a real freedom to organize a union without facing threats and intimidations and.
Speaker 6: A campaign of fear.
Speaker 3: And. That freedom is what workers at the hotel and potential potentially conference center will have at Alameda Point in some number of years when we get to that stage. And you've heard from folks from the building trades and from the UFC W and Card from Assemblymember Banta on on on this issue. And you know, we also work in coalition with with affordable housing advocates in in a number of development situations around.
Speaker 6: Around the East.
Speaker 3: Bay. And we all really believe that you got to have good jobs and affordable housing in order to deal with the crisis that we've got in the Bay Area right now. And we applaud this project for for doing both. And so we thank the city staff, especially Jennifer Ott, and we thank the city council and mayor for all their support on this. And we urge you to support the project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. At this point. We need to consider council a vote to consider the remaining items 60, 60 and ten A and that requires four votes of approval.
Speaker 1: So second.
Speaker 0: Yes, we do have more speakers, but at 1030, we have to do this procedural vote regarding taking additional agenda items after this one that we're working on right now.
Speaker 7: Second, Madam Mayor.
Speaker 0: Any comments? All those in favor. I and that passes unanimously. Thank you. And yes, we do have more speakers. Jennifer West. Irvin Gonzalez Garfield came across John Knox, right. Angela Hawk about an MC Carrigan, Karen Bay, Bobbie Winston, Curt Peterson, Allan Michonne. Michael Williams. And we had some that I'm not sure or have already left or not. Michael Williams. Byron and Cheryl Zook. If you're here and if anyone else wants to speak on this item, please fill out your slip. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is Jennifer West and I am the Green Trip policy analyst at Transform, a transportation and land use advocacy organization. I also served on the Emeryville City Council and as mayor over the last five years. So I know some of you from Stop Waste, I believe. I want to thank you for your service to alameda. At transform, we believe that all people should be able to get around without a car efficiently and affordably. And the project that is before you supports these goals. With 20 projects now green trips certified in the Bay Area, we are happy to see Alameda Point as a welcome addition to our family of projects. Green Ship Certification recognizes and supports low traffic residential development. These new multifamily developments will help our region to implement strategies to reduce traffic, parking and greenhouse gas emissions. Green chip looks at the right sizing of parking and adding transit passes, car share and other strategies to reduce traffic. And we make sure that future residents will not be driving above a certain threshold of vehicle miles traveled per day. And more information is available in the document that I shared with you and on our website. We are so excited to have our first Alameda Green Trip certification project and we hope that portions or perhaps all of Alameda Point could reach our platinum level, which is a new threshold we put out this year in 2015. The team plan that you've heard about tonight includes so many of the strategies that we suggest to partners to help streamline and get projects approved in other cities. And it's just wonderful this evening to hear this applauded again and again from your community. And it's really it's very heartwarming for us. And Green Trip. We think that Alameda Point will be an example for other development projects to follow in Alameda and around the Bay Area as well. The easy pass, easy passes from AC Transit, the BRT, the cars your vehicles unbundled parking ample bike parking shuttles downtown to BART in Oakland, a new ferry terminal with service directly to San Francisco transportation coordinators to help work with future residents. These are amazing strategies and we're very impressed with these robust measures. Transform and Green Trip respectfully recommends that you approve Alameda Point Project this evening. And I want to thank you again for your time and your service.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: Always get nervous at this point. All right. So good evening, mayor and council members. I am Ervin Gonzales and I am the I chapter San Francisco Chapter Board president. But I'm here as a resident of Alameda. And my story shortly is that while I work in San Francisco and grew up in Oakland, I chose Alameda as our home. And as a result of 27 years of living here, which originally started off as just a couple of years, we after five years, we started a family and we've been able to raise our daughter here and have a go to school. So we're very proud Alameda residents and so I'm really excited here to see you all tonight and have the presentation made forward that Alameda point will finally hopefully move forward. I'm excited also that that the Naval Air Station had it excuse me that I am sorry I got ahead of myself. I am here to speak in support of this model mixed use development that will thread mass fully thought out proposal of new homes and amenities and infrastructure improvements. Most notably the The City and Alameda Point Partners should be commended for the diversity for say of the for sale, rental and inclusionary housing with acceptance of this site a community proposal. Alameda will now have a new place to live, work and play for the residents of alameda and and our community. Please vote in favor and finally move alameda point forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And Madam Chair, if I could just clarify. And Mr. Gonzalez was a bit humble. The air stands for the American Institute of Architects. He is the president of the San Francisco chapter. And I know he does work in affordable housing because I ran into him at the EB celebration recently. So we're proud to have an Alameda resident, the president of that esteemed group.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Good evening, John Knox White. Thank you for having this opportunity. Two quick points. The question was asked about affordable housing and are we doing enough? Yeah. Over an overarching theme of both my comments. Alameda is not known for a community that shirks its duty in voting, its dissent about development and other projects. And so echoing Mr. McDonough earlier, I think the fact that we're approaching 50 or just over 50 speakers and yet so far not one has spoken out against with only 12 remaining speaks very, very loudly about this project. 20% of the housing in Alameda point to set aside for people who make not just the median, but over the median, certainly over the median income in this town. And, you know, I think we've had five months, six months of discussion between the city council and the planning board. Not once has anybody suggested that this ask staff or the developer to come back and increase that. And the reason is, is because in order to in order to pay for the hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure, as well as subsidize the 25% of the housing that will be made for people making moderate and low income , low incomes in Alameda. The only way to increase the amount of affordable housing that can be subsidized to be affordable for people making $75,000. And below is to add the increase the number of housing and so far that there hasn't been a clamoring for that. I think when you when you consider tonight whether or not this project starts to make a dent. Moving aside from the arguments of supply and demand and the fact that for 40 or 50 years this community has shut down the supply and therefore it is not a surprise whatsoever that we are in a position here or in our Bay Area having a problem with affordability and housing, because we have been joined by every single other community around us until very recently. 1998. Tony, I believe. Councilmember de SOG, you were on the council renewed hope, sued the city for not providing enough. That's why we have 25%. Every single social justice and affordable housing related group that has been here tonight has urged a strong yes, renewed hope. Green Belt Alliance Alameda Renter Coalition Preview. Angel said I could mention it transform the Alameda Point Collaborative. And while I don't know if she's speaking here, the Alameda home team is also in the house and has been a very strong proponent of this at many, many meetings. There is not one person who actually works on affordable housing who is saying there's not enough and do more and whatever else. So I think that we have to be very careful. Again, we're not making the perfect the enemy of the good or have a plan for how we're going to have more. Again, my second point really quickly advocates for housing, transportation, sustainability, business, labor and affordable housing are all standing very strongly together tonight. Over 50 speakers asking you to move forward with this. That speaks very, very loudly and clearly. This is a project with an able team and very, very, very able staff who've shepherded the community process for many years that have brought you to this point and it deserves your approval and moving it forward. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Angela Hawk about. I've lived in Alameda since 2009 and in 2014 I founded the Alameda Renters Coalition. I want to briefly say that we agree with all of the speakers who have come out tonight, especially Doyle Saylor and John Knox White. We believe that housing is a fundamental right and it's at the center of providing economic mobility, equality and mobility to the members of our our region. And that ability has now been effectively shut down. Our housing isn't working because people can't get it affordably and reasonably. Site is a first step at providing innovation in housing that our whole state desperately needs. We need leadership. We need a trailblazer in showing other communities how to do housing. Right. And this is our opportunity. And if we pass it up, we're losing not just the the potential to be a trailblazer, which is what is the element , the essence of California. We're losing out on an opportunity to turn fortunes around for for a lot of people. So I urge you to vote yes on site. And thank you so much for hearing us all out this evening. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council and staff. My name is and Mike Carrigan. I have been a resident of Alameda for almost 15 years, but I feel like this is absolutely my home. The greatest compliment I ever had was when somebody said You weren't born here. And I said, yes, because I love it here. And so the first thing I wanted to do was address an issue that you had brought up, Madame Mayor, and that is the importance of looking at different levels of housing for different levels of income. And for myself, I'm also a local realtor and have had the pleasure of being able to be a leadership in the leadership group of that of that business area. And one of the greatest problems that we have in the entire state of California is our is our lack of housing. And the important thing is, I think it is very important to be looking at all levels. We as realtors, strongly support housing affordability and are very pleased to see that 25% of this housing is going to low middle and lower income housing. It's very crucial. But I think for me, when I look at the the spreadsheet that was given out is this housing is really addressing a wide variety of incomes. And that for somebody who's out on the front every day trying to help people get into housing and really also addressing people that are looking for rentals, etc., this is something that we desperately need, something that satisfies a wide variety of people looking for housing, not just one certain part of the part of the community. It also addresses, I think, an area that's that's difficult for us because I think it's great housing for both younger and people first coming into the market and also great housing for people that are looking to downsize, who want to stay and be part of Alameda but don't need the big house anymore. And this is another opportunity for them. So just I just wanted to speak on that on the other side, you know, I also have heard, oh, you know, we don't want to change Alameda. And I believe personally that nothing speaks more about being in Alameda than the development you're looking at to approve this evening. And I certainly hope it's unanimous. This started through grassroots. This started with Alameda is talking to our meetings about what do we want to see, what do we want to have here? And it has spent a lot of time, more time than I'm sure many wanted to spend, but it kept getting better and better and better. And when something went off in the wrong directions, Alameda spoke and it turned back in. So let's hope third time is the charm. And finally, I think the exciting part is as as an elected official tonight, hopefully you'll vote yes and you get to say yes to jobs. You get to say yes to affordable housing. You get to say yes to rental housing. You get to say yes to market housing. You get to say yes to open space. You get to say yes to building a community within our community, which is very Alameda. You get to say yes to infrastructure. You get get to say yes to clean water and ensuring that our our bays I could go on and on. All the things you get to say yes in this single vote tonight, as many have said, there's I'm sure there's tweaks here and there. But this is a fabulous plan. And I really urge you to to vote yes on it.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the council and staff. My name is Karen Bay and I'm just very excited to be here tonight. This is a historic moment, 24 years in the making. I didn't know it was 24 years until tonight. So pretty exciting. I want to thank Alameda Point Partners for bringing this bringing us an amazing project. They are an amazing team. I've been in real estate development for over 15 years and I can tell you that this is a great team, a great design team, a great financial partners. I want to thank Jennifer, the city manager, Andrew Thompson, Andrew Thomas and all that, all the previous mayors that have brought us here today. In addition to all of the community benefits that's been mentioned tonight, what I am most excited about this project is the Alameda Point Partners describes as a regional destination. And I believe that we have the opportunity to create a new industry, and that is tourism. And think about it a new a new industry. Think about the potential of the jobs and developing our waterfronts, developing Puck Street, and bringing in more businesses that are that are tourism related. I am very excited about that. The last time I was here, I gave you the 2013 numbers and I have 2014 numbers, the visit Oakland campaign. And I'm saying that because I want to see a visit alameda campaign brought in 2.6 million visitors to oakland who spent $1.4 billion. As I mentioned tonight, sunset magazine, one of the largest travel magazines in the country, is moving their headquarters from Menlo Park to Jack London Square. That is significant. So and I'll talk a little bit about the San Francisco 2014 numbers. They brought in 18 million visitors who spent $10.7 billion, up 14% from two 2013. And they're building on that with more projects in the pipeline. So we have an amazing opportunity. We are sandwiched in between Jack London Square and all of the great projects. It's happening there and in San Francisco and all the projects in the pipeline. We have an amazing opportunity to build on that and to create a new tourism industry. So I ask you, I urge you tonight to think big and to this is your legacy and it's a great opportunity to create more tax revenue for the city . Thank you.
Speaker 6: Mayor Amir. Yes, I could just comment quickly. Ms.. Bay, thank you very much for referring to tourism. At the next council meeting I placed on the Council referral a discussion on possibly how to fund a visit Alameda campaign. Okay, love, I want to stay too.
Speaker 4: That's exciting. Thank you.
Speaker 3: It could. Could you put that up on the screen? He has this one. Perfect.
Speaker 1: My name is Kurt Peterson. And as I stated before, I've lived in this city for over 30 years. I participated and served on the Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board for over 15 years. Myself and Michael John Tory have both put in a lot of time and effort and we do it out of the goodness of our heart and of the goodness as far as hoping that this city is only better and better as far as the future. Okay. We could have very easily allowed the Navy not to clean up to acceptable standards, but we wanted to make sure that the point is clean as much as possible. So at that time, I'm going to be the odd one here. I'm going to be the one that doesn't put up a pom poms here. And the reason I'm going to do that is please look at this screen which the mayor brought up. Basically says that 16% a first of all, I want to clarify it. It's the median income for the city of Alameda. Based on 2013 numbers, which is the most recent I can find here, 75,200. They're not going to qualify for anything. The average the average person isn't going to qualify except for the low and very low. And even if you look at the county, it's even lower. It's 73,349, I believe. Okay. So they wouldn't qualify either. So basically what it comes down to everyone saying low cost, low cost housing. Wonderful. Hey, I'd love it, too. I've got two sons. Can't afford basically to live here. They do. Running as far as affordable housing as they can. But I mean, you're basically talking 128 out of 800 for the average person to be able to afford here to even qualify or they're not even going to talk to you. They've already told you that if you don't do this, you don't qualify for that others. So look at it carefully. I'm not saying 128 is not better than none. But don't be deceived because what they're using this number and don't think Alameda Partners Point Partners is doing it because they're wonderful. It's because you're giving them an exemption as far as measure A, you're beaten, measure to death. Pretty soon there won't be anything. I don't know. Most of these people even know about that high density measure that we passed some time ago. But there is exemptions. You continue to keep having exemptions if you're going to do it, really take care of the people as far as low costs. Don't give them a little carrot here. Okay. On another point I wanted to say real quickly, as far as the ferry terminal. Wonderful, wonderful thing. Hopefully, the the seaplane lagoon does have a plume that is working towards that direction close to that site. They have to do any dredging you're talking about. So it's not a little a pretty picture. I'm saying wait, look at carefully, you know, don't jump. That's things. People aren't going to run away. We're doing enough development right now. Maybe we should wait and see what our existing development that we've already proved is going to have as far as transportation woes before we jump into something new. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor Matt, R-S.C., and city council members and staff. I had not planned on speaking this evening. My name is Daniel Alvarez, and I am currently the vice president of the Planning Board. So I didn't feel it was appropriate for me to speak, since I'd already given my opinion. With my vote on this particular project. So when the Mayor decided that she wanted to hear about people and affordable housing in Alameda, I thought this was the opportunity to speak to that point. I am a mother. I am a daughter. I am a daughter of immigrants who benefited from Alameda affordable housing many, many years ago. 53 years ago, when they came to this wonderful city, my family gave back to the community. They taught us to give back. I hope that in my service to the community, I am doing what they hoped that I would do. I have a son who is now in the military and he would like to come back to live in Alameda. And when you look at the charts, Madam Mayor, my son doesn't even qualify for low income housing because of his service to our wonderful country. So this is just one of many projects that are being slated for the city of Alameda for affordable housing. It's only one component piece of the entire project. It's important. We need more, not less. I can speak to other items, but I think that in my comments at the planning board level, I have addressed those. I think our leadership here wants the best for the city. I think we all want what's best for the city. I would ask that you would continue to keep the goodness of this wonderful city that we've had for years and years and vote yes on this project. Thank you so much for your time and for your service.
Speaker 3: There's Spencer, members of the council staff. Jennifer. My name's Alan Machan and I have been a resident of Alameda for 35 years now. Moving here from San Francisco to settle. I am the operator of two businesses at Alameda Point and that is the Alameda Point, Antiques and Collectibles Fair as well as machines auctions. I have been in business out there for 18 years now, which I think possibly makes me the oldest tenant at Alameda Point. I know my hair was was dark brown when I started, so it's been a while. During those 18 years, as I've watched our infrastructure crumble. I do lease for buildings out there. I've seen a succession of proposed developers, maybe developers, tire kickers of all sorts coming through the base, talking to me, making presentations. I can't count the number of meetings and presentations and and group strategy meetings I've gone to. And every single time that one of those developers went down in flames, I felt overwhelming relief. They were all the wrong people. They were outside opportunists that were coming in trying to get what they could get. And I don't think they wanted to do anything for Alameda. It was all how much could they make off of this? How much could they get away with not giving back to the city and the community to grab this incredible piece of property that we have out there? 18 years ago. Almost to this date in front of this council, the different council, Tony de Saag was here. I came before the council and asked for approval to be a tenant at $5,000 a month to start the Alameda Point Antiques Fair. I squeaked by 3 to 2. Tony, thank you for your vote. We were approved. Today, my two companies are paying the city over $1,000,000 a year in rent at AL and a point I believe I'm the biggest tenant out there as far as dollars bills to the city. The city gave me a chance to build my business and to do something for the community out there. And we are now probably bring more people into Alameda every month than any other business. I have no idea what kind of sales tax revenues we generate, but it's very, very significant. My event has been listed as one of the top five flea markets in the world, and my auction house is building tonight. You have an opportunity to approve a good developer that has done his homework is a team that is part of this city. And if you fail to approve this tonight with the amount of work and outreach and planning and compromise that this group has put into this project, I believe you will never in the next 20 years get another developer to come in and be willing to even engage in the process. After seeing this group and this amount of work and this amount of of positive energy go down in flames, please, this is the right time to vote yes. All of the other ones, they were not right. And I was so happy to see them go. Please approve this project tonight for the future of Alameda so that I can continue out there as a as a tenant with water and electricity and Internet and phones. Please. Thank you. Yes. I didn't intend to forfeit my opportunity to speak.
Speaker 0: I did.
Speaker 3: Feel.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Do you have some other slips that people have not come up? Can you say your name so I know which one?
Speaker 3: Yes. My name is Garfield Quinn Cross.
Speaker 0: Got it. Thank you.
Speaker 3: And I worked at the Naval Air Station. I am number 17,999. Displaced employee. I'm also. I may be the last speaker tonight, but I'm okay. Well, then on on this on this note, I worked at the base for ten years and I like the Alameda I used to drive in from Oakland and it would just reminded me of of where I used to live in Los Angeles in the in the sixties. You know, they had a parade and everything, you know. And so I moved here, finally got to move here. And. I've experienced quite a bit of the renters anxiety, you know, over the last few years. And I was able to obtain some, some assistance in that regard by. Utilizing the rental advisory committee. And, you know, I'm looking at trying to get out of this out of this bind of of yearly rent increases. That's that's yet another topic. But it's it's like. Sort of a. You know. Kind of what? What? Philip Bobbitt, the author of a book called The Shield of Achilles War and Peace. In the course of history, which he determines, you know, he gives a brief, a quite an in-depth summary of the history of war and what the consequences are. And he calls it the market state. You know, the market state has taken the the other forms of of of government, and they exist in sort of a virtual state, you know, with no geographical borders. So this is is a symptom of what Philip Bobbitt calls the market state. And, you know, it's just ongoing and it's everywhere else in the country. It's it's all over the you know, it has to do with terrorism. It has to do with national security, has to do with with profit. And it affects every one of us. You know, I would urge anyone who's who who could take the time to become more politically informed, you know, to utilize some of the resources like the Spitfire List Web site at Foothill College of for a lot of this information is the antifascist anti-Nazi research engine supported by a community college. And people should be aware of the dynamics that are taking place. A lot of people really don't understand that. But I'm in support of. This site a. And I would I'd like to stay in Alameda and have the opportunity to, uh, to be a part of this community in an, in a more. A visible fashion. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We have some clips and I want to make sure these speakers aren't here or if you've already spoken. Bobby Winston. Michael Williams. Byron and Sheryl Zook. If you're any of those, come on up. Oh, Kangas, these are a next set. Paul Kangas, Allen Source, Doug Horn and then Janet Gibson. And those are the last clips I have. If you want to speak on this item, please turn in your slip. Thank you. Oh, yes. Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt real quick. And to continue past 11, I need a motion.
Speaker 3: So moved.
Speaker 0: All those in favor. I thank you. You may continue. That motion passed unanimously.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Paul Kangas, and Alameda has an amazing opportunity here if you do it right. Because you could become a world leader in the generation of solar energy, because you have one thing that almost no city in this state has. You have your own utility. And if you do what I saw in Germany last summer in Freiburg and the city, an old military base, and they took in, they converted it to 100% solar powered houses. The whole base became a world leader. It set off a change throughout Germany. Now there's over a hundred cities like that that have copied what they did at that old military base. 20 years ago, I was stationed here in 1960, and I've looked at this state to try and figure out an opportunity. Then I saw Almeida and he said, Wow, they have their own utility. They built each house with 100 solar panels in Germany. That may sound unusual, but the result is it generates money and it generates jobs. The homeowners get free energy, plus they sell their energy onto the grid. It's an amazing opportunity you have here because, well, you know what you've got. They generated $6 billion in cash flow through the German economy by switching to solar and wind. They created 12,000 union wage jobs. Solar is now the largest union employer in Germany. California has a goal of 50% solar renewable energy by 2050. You could be the city that turns the state around. You could be the tail that wags this dog by doing this right, by going to the Inter Solar Conference in San Francisco on July 14th, where the mayor of Freiburg will be speaking about what they did on their old military base in Germany. You can get free tickets going online and or solar. But it's an amazing convergence here. What's going on? The concept of putting a hundred solar panels is not easy. I spoke with an architect back here about it. But it's a beautiful concept. And I urge you to use this opportunity to. Develop this project the way of the future. I mean, look into the future. You are the future. Your opportunity is greater than any city in the state of California. The city of Lancaster, Rex Parris, ordered all houses built in Lancaster to be 100% solar power. New houses. And you could do something similar to that here because we're wasting, you know, enough solar energy hits the city every day to run the city for a whole year. That's how much we're wasting. You could be 100% off gas. San Francisco burned down not because of the earthquake, but because PGE and we had just lay the gas line across San Francisco that blew up and a blow torched San Francisco. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Helen Source. Council members. Thank you for this opportunity. I did send you a letter expressing my views on the benefits of PSI Day because I didn't think I would be able to get back here in time to speak tonight. But others have very articulately expressed the views that I had on those benefits. But since I've been gone for some time, I've had a chance to think about roles. And we've heard about staff roles tonight and the excellent ones that they have carried out. The commissioners have done their roles. And the citizens have done their roles. We have dogged this project for 24 years and certainly this developer has been exceptional in allowing us to make inquiries, to explain, to answer questions, to modify as response to logical arguments. So their developer role has been done superbly. So now it's your role. And this is the moment for the city's history to really show how you seize success and opportunity from and from a great development, a good developer, and how this third of their island can become part of our community. So when I think of roles tonight, your leadership will show us your affirmation in voting for this project that you will care for our future. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Doug Duncan. Former Vice Mayor Reno. I wasn't too sure exactly how and when this would culminate into some action. And finally, this evening, we're going forward. Let me give you some background real quick. I was last on back in 91 or the Naval Air Station that was working with with all and they in the council at that point in time. I had 36 years of service over. I was one of the employees, the last one, and I was the head of the ex-senator, which was the transition of 5500 employees. Also was brought three different companies aboard. One of those companies happened to be electric company, electric automotive company called Carlstadt. It did not survive very long, but it was the forerunner. And I would like to say probably what's happening today. Of. In doing so, I am my lifetime. Resident of Alameda. I've been in the process a third of my life and I got some great hair. I will give you some background. And when I was talking with Jennifer, we had gone through 11 different executive officers for the base. We had a congressional committee, Jeb Craig. We formed Aura and move forward. We established the brig, which had 15 subcommittees that develop the committee immunity reuse plan. That is your backbone. That's where it came about in 96 that was provided to you. We lost our way. We allowed developers to come in and marginalize what was happening. We had a no cost conveyance at that time. If someone tells you, Hey, I just brought the no cost conveyance to you, we had one at that time. I say the community reuse plan was made up of various segments. And was move forward. We had one developer that bailed out because of the economy, another one that had no idea of what aluminum needs were. Period. What the what the council did after we lost son Cal. We set forward with the guidance of our staff and the Council to lay out a timeline to divide the.
Speaker 3: Excuse me.
Speaker 0: You may continue.
Speaker 1: Okay. Divide it into parcels, bite sized parcels, instead of giving that whole cell to one identity. What you have in front of you tonight is that first effort. The important segment that is here. I would hope that we will be able to. Go forward with job development, which was extremely important. And I think that's one of the elements that we would like to go forward. We did dust off the community, use, reuse, plan and use that as a baseline to move forward. So yeah, evolution did move. I have to say that the development team that you have before us as more roots and Alameda as more understanding as better more benchmarks or what they had done in in the Harbor Bay. So with that in mind, tonight is just the beginning. Look, I think this is a milestone and it is a milestone. I suggest to you that we move forward and move move this forward so we can build upon it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: This point. Janet Gibson is our last speaker. If there's anyone else that want to speak, please turn in your slip. Thank you.
Speaker 2: So Mayor Spencer and City Council and staff. My name is Janet Gibson and I'm here representing the Alameda Citizens Task Force, the steering committee, with a letter to you. And you are receiving copies right now. Active members have been studying and responding to development plans at Alameda Point for many years. We want you to know that the open process and the willingness for citizen involvement on the part of Alameda Point Partners has convinced us that they are an excellent company for our city to work with on this initial Alameda Point site. Our members are concerned and will continue to be concerned about many aspects of the development, including fair labor practices. But with that in mind, we would like to focus on two areas that we feel should remain a major concern for this and future development at the point. Traffic and senior housing. Although many would have you believe otherwise. We know that.
Speaker 5: Traffic on and.
Speaker 2: Off our island is and will remain a major concern for Alamitos. Egress into Oakland remains a problem, and the possibility of troop closure looms with the certainty that there will be an earthquake activity along our fault site.
Speaker 5: The traffic ramifications of site.
Speaker 2: A must be considered along with the traffic that will be generated from the additional 3000 units presently in the pipeline along the northern waterfront. Well, some seniors might find housing in the plan, 25% affordable housing. Hundreds of our medians would benefit from a plan. Senior housing community. That would allow them to downsize from existing residents homes that are too large and often have too many stairs. Our last census in 2010, the national census listed 9075 Alameda residents over 65. And that's 13.5% of our population. Imagine what that number is now. It's considerably more. When seniors sell their family homes, they will be confronted with capital gains and the need to purchase another residence. Just think about the retirement age, baby boomer boomers who would rather buy in Alameda than move and purchase in Rossmore. I remember when a lot of our senior, my friends were moving up to paradise a long ways away where they could get housing. We would encourage Alameda Point Partners and the City Council to consider designing or designating an additional 25% of the city housing for those seniors who are able to afford something special, even spectacular. Using universal design principles for the needs of the aging as well as for the handicapped, would fit in well with the amenities already incorporated into the present plans the parks, the open spaces, the shopping nearby. Senior housing would.
Speaker 5: Help mitigate traffic problems because it.
Speaker 2: Generates far fewer cars than commuter traffic. Seniors are a win win situation when concerning our traffic concerns. As you consider your vote tonight, please incorporate these issues of traffic and senior housing in your deliberations. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: She was our last speaker. Council. So who wants to go first? Well, remember Ashcroft? Thank you. Thank you, Mary Spencer, for keeping us moving. That's right. How many speakers did we have? Wow. That might be some kind of a record. Well, I want to say at the outset that I feel that the Warriors victory tonight is a good omen for us. I would like to thank the team, and by that I mean our staff, our stars on the staff team, the development team, and also the members of the public. All of you who came out and spoke tonight, it really. There's so much energy in the room. It's like a town hall meeting. And in addition to the ones of you who stayed stayed here in person, we've gotten lots of emails and letters from you, too. So thank you all for your input. It was also inspiring to me to see members of the public from recent college grads, millennials and our senior citizens come out and speak to us. It was powerful to hear from three former mayors, two of them Beverly Johnson and Mary Gilmore. I count as my mentors and to hear, to be reminded how each in their own way and their own time helped Alameda along the course to where we find ourselves today. There's a maxim that says One generation plants the seed and another generation sits in the shade. So, you know, you don't get to do everything and see everything in your time, but you can you can help make it happen. I've thought long and hard about what we are doing tonight because we've had quite a long time and very, very well planned opportunities to consider this. And one of the first things that came to my mind is that as city council members, we were elected to lead, and I am prepared to do so tonight. Among the three documents that we are asked to approve this evening is an ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a disposition and development agreement between the city of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners to sell and lease 68 acres of real property at Alameda Point, known as City. In order to approve this ordinance. The Council must make a series of findings and determinations based on all the relevant evidence we've heard from qualified and interested persons, which includes all of you tonight, by the way, who spoke . And after many months of hearings and many meetings, I am prepared to make those findings tonight. Some of the more significant ones include the conveyance of the property to the developer, will assist in the elimination of blight and will provide affordable housing. Specifically, the project will result in the creation of approximately 200 residential units permanently restricted to occupancy by very low, low and moderate income households. The development of the property will also result in local economic opportunity and serve as a catalyst for the redevelopment and revitalization of the former NASA. Alameda pursuant to the reuse plan. And thank you to former Vice Mayor Doug design for sharing your in-depth history at alameda point when it was known as the Naval Air Station. But this economic this catalyst for economic opportunity.
Speaker 2: Includes.
Speaker 0: Helping replace the approximately 18,000 jobs that were lost by the departure of the Navy in 1997 by creating approximately 1472 permanent commercial jobs in the fields of specialty manufacturing, light, industrial, retail and hotel uses. And implementing a project labor agreement with the building trades of Alameda County that will generate approximately 2570 full time equivalent construction jobs over the life of the project. And I know there was some comment earlier criticizing the developer for working with labor. I actually applaud both Labor and the development team. And I have been, you know, kind of on the outskirts checking in from time to time to see how things are going. This represents a lot of collaboration, a lot of negotiation, but in a very collaborative, constructive spirit and what a play a project labor agreement does. And the prior council to more than two years ago when I first got on the council had a, an excellent presentation by a Labor lawyer, Michael Fleming, about plays, but essentially what they provide are decent jobs and wages as well as training opportunities for young people who need those marketable skills. So at the same time that we've heard so much concern voiced here tonight about the ability of people, especially young people starting out to find jobs that will allow them to find housing that they can afford.
Speaker 2: How could we.
Speaker 0: Possibly be anything other than supportive of a program that allows people to have those well-paying jobs and trains others, including our young people at the Alameda Point Collaborative? These are kids from formerly homeless families. So I think and I don't think I'm alone on this council that whatever we can do to support job growth and training opportunities , we want to get behind 110%. So for me, it's not difficult to make the findings that are before us in this ordinance. They're well documented in the voluminous materials, I said. I started measuring my reading by pounds, not pages, on this one. This project will also pump $103 million into rebuilding decaying.
Speaker 2: Infrastructure.
Speaker 0: And also new development at. And also so I build multimodal streets and sidewalks, as has been noted, and help fund parks and open space and a new ferry terminal at the Seaplane Lagoon. And I know there's been some question of do we need a new ferry at the Seaplane Lagoon? We've got one at Main Street. As it has also been noted, water transit is the most promising form of transit in our area of the future. And the main street ferry is, as has also been noted, full almost to capacity. And we still have the development of the northern waterfront coming online. Alameda landing the northern waterfront del Monte and then Alameda Point remember site is just the first 68 acre development. We want to attract more jobs and there's still summer housing coming online. So this is something that the developer is funding. And then how impressive was it to hear this project and hear from representatives of the Bay Area Council, the Greenbelt Alliance? Renewed Hope Transform Bike Walk Alameda. I think I'm forgetting some. Come out and voice their strong support. We have attracted regional attention on this project. I believe it is now time for Alamitos elected leaders to rise to the occasion and take the proactive next steps to revitalize this important but decaying area of our west end of the city and realize its potential for our city now and in the future. We can cast the issues before us as complicated or straightforward. I see them as straight forward. And now, over the past year that this council and the previous council, as well as all of the city boards and commissions who have heard this this item and the public have considered, debated and amended the items we are asked to approve tonight. I think the answer is clear.
Speaker 2: We need to.
Speaker 0: Remember that ultimately our actions will speak louder than our words. It is time to act, and I am prepared to act tonight to assume the leadership I was elected to perform by approving the proposed development of a. Thank you. Remember De SA.
Speaker 6: Well, I want to begin by saying thank you very much to all the residents who took the time to come out this very important meeting. Hopefully the minutes of the meeting will reflect, you know, the names fully of the people who took the time to participate in what is literally a historic night in a city that began way back in 1854. Well, thank you very much for taking part tonight. Thank you very much for the emails that you sent, whether for against or agnostic. And also a special thank you to the city staff for shepherding this process, including a thank you to a former city manager, now city manager of Riverside, John Russo, who in my first first full month at a council member in January 2013 laid out kind of a process of how we were going to get from where we were in January 2013 to today. And what that entailed was for the city to take on a lot of the heavy duty entitlement work that oftentimes developers do so that we can get to a point where we are today, where we have a prospect in front of us who, in my opinion, work closely with the city. Well, let me just say thank you very much to the staff for laying out that vision and implementing it to a team. Let me just also say this. Several weeks ago, I and Mayor Spencer attended an event on the USS Hornet honoring members of the Doolittle Raiders. As many of you know, Jimmy Doolittle is a national, highly decorated World War Two hero who was from Alameda. Born just several blocks away from City Hall. And when he and his comrades went on their basically daredevil mission to turn the tide of the war against Japan, they left from an AC Alameda now called Alameda Point. If Doolittle and other past soldiers who came through NASA Alameda. Where to show up and walk around the point today. I believe they would want to see a place where the phrase transforming swords into plowshares isn't just a passage in the Bible. I've got to believe that heroes like you DeLillo, would want to see in Alameda Point a place where historic military structures and large grassy areas are preserved. And I believe heroes like Doolittle will want to see in Alameda Point a place where children can play. Jobs are plentiful, and there is just enough modern housing for families of all types and incomes. I've got to believe that. But that Doolittle would not want to walk around a ghost town, failing to meet its maximum cultural, recreational and economic economic potential. I preserving much of site a historic buildings for job creation by designing a place for creative, small scale artisan retail and artisan manufacturing by providing a reasonable mix of market and affordable housing. And by planning an active waterfront with incredible views for all to enjoy. Alameda Point Partners Site A project honors the military past and why. And as Alameda came into existence in the first place 80 years ago in 1936, something about life, liberty, and especially the pursuit of happiness. What Alameda Point Partners are committing to tonight didn't happen in a vacuum. Well, let me restated. Let me restate what Jennifer Art, our chief operating officer, said earlier. The city of Alameda in 2013 and 2014 assumed front end responsibilities and costs normally borne by developers. We, the City of Alameda at the urging of city manager John Russo and then Mayor Maria Gilmore. We the city council we entitled all of Alameda Point, including site A so that whichever developer came to town they would do our bidding. Why is it important that we the city of Alameda entitled the land by zoning Alameda Point adopting a general plan amendment adopting a master infrastructure plan by having us pay for the air for Alameda Point. Why is doing all this front end work important? Think about it this way. Years ago, Son Cal came to town and just wanted to do what they wanted to do. And we all know what happened. Dunkle scared the bejesus out of Alameda. And rightly so, with the 4500 homes that they had. Above all, in my opinion, Alameda Point Partners really listened to the concerns and hopes of local residents, officials and local businesses. So let's talk about some of those concerns and how they're treated in the D.A. and the DDA that's subject to a vote tonight because that's what this is all about. This is about the business terms, the vision and aspirations. All that is important, but it's about the economics as well. Let's take a look at traffic air. Now back in September of 2013 in a joint city council public planning board meeting. We were going over the details of the air and one of the issues I raised back then. So really this isn't new was curiosity about some of the traffic data that I saw and the technical appendices, Appendix G. And the explanation given was that, well, what's going to happen is traffic is going to shift. Now, I, I understood, you know, what the staff was saying with regard to that curiosity about traffic stemming from Alameda point now and into the future. But rather than just saying, no, I'm not going to vote for this either. So that's the end of conversation. I sought out policy changes that are, to this day, I believe, incorporated in the air. For example, let's talk about the shuttle system. Now, we're doing a lot of different projects in Alameda, not just Alameda Point. And we have done several projects and those projects have shuttles. But the difference in the Alameda Point partner of the shuttle program is their commitment to a 15 minute headway. Now that means a shuttle comes around every 50 minutes. That's in the contract. Now, people might say, well, AYRES Well, you got to have a shuttle coming out regularly in order for people to take it. There is and I've ridden the two shuttles that are supporting Alameda Landing and the other shuttle supporting Marina Village. They come around only once every 30 minutes and not very many people take it, of course, for Alameda Landing. That's because the residents really aren't there yet. So so, you know, the the much remains to be seen. So they've got a real. Strategy with regard to the shuttle. A real commitment isn't just that we're going to have a shuttle, but we're going to have a shuttle that runs regularly. Now, another issue that it raised that I raised as a policy alternative, in light of looking at those traffic impact numbers, I raised the possibility of having a what I call a just in case just in case the the team and the initially contemplated transit solutions don't work just in case. We need a failsafe that says how we might deal with that. And that failsafe is in the TDM and therefore it is part of the DDA. It's part of the contract. Now on a side note, as a city, we will go down the path of comprehensive transit planning because we do have to coordinate the shuttles for marina village alameda landing and site a well, we'll figure that out. But the key point is this as a councilmember, not just myself, but as a body, back in 2013 and 2014, we scrutinized the air impact data and analyzes and we voiced skepticism where where it was rightfully voiced. And rather than just saying, oh, I'm skeptical, therefore, no, we instead sought out a realistic, achievable policy alternatives and. Alameda Partners was helpful in that regard. So they really listened on a key issue. Now, we've heard the other transit solutions that are part of this, you know, the ferry terminal. So I'm not going to go into that. Now, let's talk about another housing. Another issue, housing. So tonight the question had been raised, does this benefit the average household in Alameda? And by average, it's the household that makes roughly $75,000. Now. I think the answer to that question is a resounding yes. And it's a yes because of this. If you live alone right now in Alameda and make 75,000, you are a moderate income for purposes of qualifying families for moderate income units in the Alameda Point Unit, Alameda Point site eight units and there are 72 moderate income units. Now, if you live with another person of whatever age, meaning that you are a two person household and you still make $75,000 again, you still are a moderate income for purposes of qualifying families with a moderate income units. Now for those who are so interested in, you know, what are the definitions of moderate income, I just simply encourage you to Google. HUD Income Limits. Alameda County 2015. Let me close by saying this. We've got a rare opportunity to make current and future residents and all of those who are involved in Alameda Point and NASA Alameda , whether as civilians or as soldiers, we've got a rare opportunity to make everyone proud. So for that reason, I hope that we move forward with the site A on all the different decision points that we have to make tonight.
Speaker 2: Brody.
Speaker 7: A few hours ago, our former mayor, Beverly Johnson, said we are the luckiest council to serve in Alameda. I heard Lois Pryor say that this is the most important vote that we're going to take as a council. And with that pressure. I've been struggling to think about what I'm going to say, you know, in such an important, historic moment. I mean, it's humbling to be up here. And what can we say that hasn't been already said in 24 years that we haven't heard in the community, that we haven't heard even tonight, and that I haven't even heard from my colleagues. Fortunately for all y'all, not that much. But I do. You know, in sitting here, a couple of speakers, you know, helped crystallize my thinking on this. You know, one who I did not know what she was going to say. Held out the possibility of being a grandparent soon. And. You know, hearing that she wanted to raise her family here in Alameda. I mean, that really that really hit home to me. And that's what's important to me. I heard Pam Chang, a fellow Bay Farm parent whose children went to school with my children at Bay Farm Elementary , you know, say the same thing that that's her wish that that her children can move to Alameda, can live in Alameda and can raise their families in Alameda. And I think that was, you know, hit home by Mrs. Cohn in her comments and Ms.. Alvarez from the planning board in her comment. So I guess what I'm going to try to spend my time tonight talking about is, you know, thank you to those who came before me, who came before us, who made this night after 24 years possible. I do want to thank staff. I think the entire staff, if I don't single you out specially, then that doesn't mean I do not respect all the hard work. But I do want to, you know, give a shout out to Jennifer Ott. There was a comment earlier about the yeoman's work or young woman's work that that she's done. And, you know, this is your person. This is just a what you have done is tremendous. I hope you take a long vacation if we approve this and then come back and start working on site because we need to keep moving . Now that Andrew Thomas, our city planner, you know, thank you for everything you've done here for Rima Brown. And then and recall panic from the city attorney's office. You know, thank you for everything you've done on this project. Lev Kushner, is he still here? I don't know if he's here or if he was here. Thank you for all of your hard work, all the department heads. You know, this has really been a team effort. And the entire city, the city manager, our current city manager, Miss Warmer, than her predecessor, Mr. Russo, our current city attorney , Miss Kern, thank you for everything you've done. Our city clerk who, you know, put together all of these binders for us and make sure that we're all prepared, you know, everything. And just just thank you to everyone on the city staff. Our former mayor, Mary Gilmore, said earlier today that, you know, each of the people that came before us in a small way helped get us to where we are today. And I respectfully want to disagree with the former mayor on that. I think each of you and there's a number of you that are in the audience that were in the audience and even are sitting up here, you know, are responsible in a big way or why we are here today. And the point we are here, and I do want to at least name them by names because I think, you know, sometimes when you leave the council, if you don't if you're not lucky enough to come back, you know, then people forget you. But, you know, there's been a lot of work done on this. And, you know, we heard our former mayor, Bill Ritter, all who was mayor when, you know, the base closure was announced, all of his his contributions to where we are today. Our late mayor, Ralph Pizarro, you know, he's going to be memorialized by the the highway or the road that that graces the entrance to the city. You know, he was mayor when the base closed and when we started up the process. And, you know, his contributions could not be overlooked. Beverly Johnson, our other former mayor, who we've heard as she went through the base closure process as a member of the council and the two master developers that, you know, came and went and, you know, her leadership through that process, you know, our previous mayor, Marie Gilmore, you know , the council that she served on, you know, helped secure the no cost conveyance. You know, our council members that served little niche back when the base was was still open. Again, a former mayor opposite of the late Al DeWitt, who also served during, you know, when the base was closing. And we were getting to the point of, you know, deciding what we were going to do. Barbara Kerr, you know, also served on the council. My colleague here to the right, you know, council member Tony de Sakai, he listed some of the the efforts that, you know, he has done to put us in this position. And, you know, he's been working on this, you know, for probably longer than than he cares to remember. My other colleague, further down to the left, our vice mayor, you know, Frank matter, Ricci, one of the people that I think saved us from Sun Cao, you know, by exposing the flaws in the financials and, you know, really showed strong leadership. And, you know, when I talk about leadership, I do want to give a little kudos to the to the vice mayor. I'm not sure how he's going to vote, but we heard from a lot of housing advocates today, and it was a good job of getting housing advocates out. But, you know, there is some segment of our population that thinks, you know, we should have no housing. Now, we had a meeting on that a while back, and we know that that's not possible. We have to meet our arena requirements, our regional housing. Allocation. But, you know, there's a proposal that we're going to discuss after this that basically allows us to consider side A and still keep our our housing numbers flat. So it's a proposal to remove 800 units, the exact same amount that we're considering inside a and Down's owned property, Northern Housing, to keep our housing numbers flat. So we're not actually creating additional housing above and beyond what we're required to do in our arena number. So I think that that to put us in that position where we can still be cognizant of a lot of the concerns that people have over traffic and a lot of concerns that people have over additional housing, I think is tremendous leadership. And I thank you for doing that. Now, again, we go on. You know, Mayor Gilmore was on the council. Doug Duncan, I really appreciate it. You know, hearing your comments and your history and and you were part of the council along with Lina Tam, you know, and Rob Bonta that helped get the no cost conveyance and help put us on a new path to where we are today with with chunking it up into into pieces instead of going the master development route. You know, Stuart Chen, my colleague, Mr. de Saag, my colleague Ms.. Ashcraft, you know that that was the previous council. And, you know, they in last last winter or last fall, you know, adopted the INA did the Yana that brought us Jo Ernst. And they also passed and approved the, you know, entitlement process that Councilmember De Saag talked about. So I think as I sit here as a new council member, I want to make sure that all of those that came before me, they're recognized. And, you know, the last group I need to thank is the community. You know, you came out in numbers today. You've come out and you've been engaged in the process and you've been actually, you know, in this process for 24 years and. You know that the vision that this city is part of is part of our community vision. So I feel comfortable considering it today, knowing that it has been vetted and that it has the community input. And that's actually what the community wants to see. And I do want to, as my last bit of thanks, you know, thank the development team. So we've heard a lot today, and I think there's been a lot of pressure on you to solve every social ill that impacts the city of Alameda. And that's tough. You know, at some point there was a risk that this has become like a Christmas tree loaded up with with too many ornaments and that would fall down . But, you know, we have to realize this is a 68 acre site. You know, this is not going to cure everything, every problem that we have. So we have to realize that. But what you were able to do, you know, throughout the process was listen to us and produce a plan that reflects our values. And at least I can say it reflects my values. And I just kind of I know a lot of this has gone over, so I'll try to be brief, but. You know, we have the affordable housing component, the 25% affordable housing component. You know, I heard those values today. And what you've done in your agreement is if the affordable housing, you know, if if it's not built, then it will be built. Otherwise, we'll stop and not allow you to build any more market housing, the infrastructure. You know, that's a value that we cherish our existing tenants and the new tenants that we want to bring there. And that's a value that that's being met in this plan, a major contribution to the ferry terminal. So increasing mass transit and options for our citizens, you know, that's a value we all share. You know, the transit infrastructure and the TDM options on day one. Those are values that we all share, the parks and the sports complex. We heard some talk about that earlier. Those are values that we all share and are part of this this blend now. And the jobs, you know, the permanent jobs and the construction jobs, you know, creating jobs is a value that I think every one of us on this council shares. And, you know, the project labor agreement and the card check, you know, I'm very pleased that you guys were able to make that agreement, you know, with the labor unions. And that's that's an agreement that's made on the side. That's not something that council is a party to. That's an agreement between the developer and the labor unions. And I heard you know, I heard a comment earlier that that that said a lot of these working men and women and these these working families and the citizens of our city are special interests. And I take a little bit exception to that. You know who they are, hotel workers, restaurant employees, people that wait on you, the people that wash dishes in restaurants. The servers are retail workers, carpenters, bricklayers, glazers, laborers, electricians, grocers, your butcher, the person who helps you at the checkout stand at Safeway . You know, builders, these are not special interests. These are everyday people, you know, and you can even expand to people that are not even covered under this project. Labor You mean teachers? The people who teach our children, you know, they're also represented by unions, the recycling workers that sort our trash. You know, we've heard from them in the past few months. You know, the truck drivers that deliver our goods, you know, the nurses that keep us safe and yes, even the firefighters and police officers that keep our streets safe. You know, these are not special interests. These are our neighbors, these are our friends, these are our taxpayers. So I just want to make that that clear, that that there's no confusion over who these people are. So in closing, I remember when the Affordable Care Act was passed and the vice president of the United States had a comment on it, and I'm not going to say exactly what he said, but he said this is a big deal. So what I'm going to say to all of you today, this vote here on Alameda Point on site A is a big deal and I plan on supporting it and I encourage my colleagues that have yet to weigh in to do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I swear.
Speaker 3: Sure. A lot more fun than the last vote I had on a developer. An element of point.
Speaker 0: No pitchforks.
Speaker 3: No pitchforks, no being run off the dais. I'm not going to repeat a number of things. I am going to vote for this tonight. I think it's important. The know I think it's important to talk about the comments and how I got here. I was not in favor of the town center. I am still not, you know. Anyway. If I do it myself, I do it different. But it's not practical. What this project has is $103 million of infrastructure. And that includes 10 million toward a ferry terminal, and it includes a waterfront park, which everybody wants and includes contribution to sports complex. Not to mention the guts that are falling apart out there. There is a way that the city could fund that ourselves, but it's simply not practical. There are infrastructure bonds that are available. There are a community development fund bonds. But you need to secure these bonds. And the only asset that the city has to secure it is the general fund. After having gone through the budget. That is a practical impossibility. The more practical consideration is that there's not enough revenue to cover the payment of those bonds. Deliver what this is delivering. The second point that I want to make is there are 800 units of housing here, and I would rather see Alameda Point being a commercial industrial center. However, obviously, it pays for infrastructure. So I. I swallowed my pride and I looked for a compromise in the compromises. Look at 2009, when we made an agreement with the Navy that both the city and the Navy agreed to, that north housing would have 435 units, which included a ten acre park. I think we honor that. That's where our 800 units come. And in item six D, we're going to vote on the recommendation, the IMET unanimous recommendation in the planning board to do that. It's a compromise, but I am very conscious. Of what 50 people said here, but with thousands of people set out, there is they're afraid of the runaway housing development in this city because of traffic. So I had to look for a compromise, and I think I found it there. And I. I want to thank the planning board for looking at it carefully and delivering that to us tonight. A. My highest priority is delivering jobs at the base project. Labor Agreement does that for the short term. This particular project, even though it's a residential project, I'm looking very closely at the 600,000 square feet of commercial plate space. And I had asked on May 19th after the planning board had made their determination on North housing. I had asked at that meeting to consider bringing the commercial. Development sooner on in the project. So it's more concurrent with the development of the housing. We see that in Building seven 117. That has to happen in phase one and there's going to be commercial activity in that building when the vertical infrastructure is completed in phase one according to the Milestone project I read. Is that correct? Yes. I just want to double check that I have my notes. Right. And. There are similar but farther out for building 118, the other large component of commercial activity in this particular development. Now, what else did I see that it needs is and this is something that, again, I've heard in the community is that we're going to get a ferry and be able to walk to the ferry. Well, you're not going to be able to walk to the ferry for a long time because $10 million doesn't buy the ferry terminal and we haven't made a commitment to run the service. So in the amendment, we have a shuttle that gaps that so that people can still get to the ferry. From the residential units of that. And I, I appreciate the negotiations because one of the points that was made at the main meeting was the negotiations are not over. And the negotiations continued up till, as far as I know, 1130 last night. So I think the community needs to appreciate that. I certainly do. And I also cannot underscore enough the significance of a project labor agreement and more importantly, the card checks, because and I have in my campaign no contributions, not a penny from any labor organizations. But it's important that we pay people wages that allow them to live in the Bay Area and give them benefits to keep them out of the emergency room so they get health care from a benefit package. And this is our developer signing this agreement is his way of providing us with that assurance. And I appreciate the negotiations that went on with that. And then finally, what I wanted to see in phase one, and I made this ask. Was that? Profit participation. I want to get rid of two things. The city's not making a profit off of Alameda Point. The developers can make an a profit, but we're going to get some money if it's wild profits. And I wanted to see that money go toward more affordable housing among the 600 units that aren't currently designated in the in that and I see that here it's ten not as many as I'd like, but I think it it sets a precedent and it gives us ten more units in the second phase that I think is very important. Those are my reasons. I do want to say thank you. I don't like the term yeoman's job, but it sounds like now this is an extraordinary job that has been done. And I'm not surprised because I was here for the theater development, and that was an extraordinary job, and that was a team effort led by Miss Orton. I think we all need to be appreciative of that. This is also the first block. There's more to be done. And I think we have to keep in mind that we're talking about an entire city. And this is a small piece. A small piece of that. But it is a huge step, and that's why I'm willing to make that leap tonight. And it is a whole lot more fun than 2010 and Sun County.
Speaker 2: And Brody.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence. I just realized in my list here I neglected to, you know, thank one of my predecessors, Lina Tam, who also served on the city council, you know, during the no cost conveyance and the DNA and the entitlement process. My apologies.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I want to speak to. A memory asks. A concern I have and I continue to have is meeting the needs of our entire community. When I look at this chart, I see the 166 units townhomes to purchase with a starting price of 101 126 household income, 120,000. I'm reading this correctly. That is. It's actually hard for you to see the numbers up there, the dollars, but. 166 units starts at 120,000. That means all of those units are beyond the median of. 75,000. Then the condos for sale start at 95,000. If I'm reading that correctly. Household income, 95,000. Again. That means that all of those are beyond the median income of 75,000 of our community right now. Based upon the most recent numbers we have. Now the apartments have come down in regards to the income level, which I appreciate. It's currently at 70,000. Household income. 70,000. That is actually just under the median. All of the apartment. 362. And what the distribution of these is actually not here. Right. Can someone confirm that that that we can still be looking at during the design process, the allocation? I'd actually I'd like to speak to Mr. Ernst at this point. Possible. So can you explain? Thank you very much. Can you explain within these segments? And the distribution. What will happen in the future?
Speaker 6: What will happen in the future? So, you know, should we you know, the next phase here will be the design review for the products we will go through. We'll start to design the buildings. We'll start to lay out the floor plans and we'll start to look at different product mixes. Will also update our market studies, look at what's going on, you know, with new product coming online, you know, where where there's too much product, too little product. And you know, from that and from the design of the building determine, you know, how we will design the product mixed into the into these buildings.
Speaker 0: Okay. So a concern of mine is that almeida's. Most recent median income is approximately 75,000 MM per year. The only units that actually fall under that. From what I can tell, if I'm reading this correctly. Are the 128 units of very low and low.
Speaker 6: That fall below the median.
Speaker 0: Fall below the median of 75,000.
Speaker 3: Well, there's. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: I want to quickly clarify. And this time, this area, median income for Alameda County actually ranges, ranges depending on the size of the house.
Speaker 0: I was actually looking it for the city, not the county. Well, okay.
Speaker 5: I'm just based on. Yes, based on what? The county. It's 65,000 or 66,000 per one person household. And then it goes up to about 93,000 for a four person household.
Speaker 0: And for a four person household, that's many of these units. From what I understand, we're actually talking about studios in one bedrooms, some. That would be tight. I appreciate you sharing that. Thank you. Okay. So, so for you, though, Mr.. So in regards to so a concern I have is the distribution of these units in recognition of our community. And we did have a speaker speak to gentrification of a community that they had lived in. And when I look at this. Our current community, the median income is, in fact, 75,000 close to that. 66. 84. Whatnot. The majority of these units. Exceed that requirement of household income.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. So what I am wondering is when you are going through the planning board and looking at your distribution. And I recognize that you live here in town, and I recognize that this team has done a lot of compromising. Is it possible for you to continue and you have actually expanded this one bar of apartments so that now it does, in fact, reach 70000 hours before it reached 95,000? Mm hmm. So before 95,000 was out of the range of the median income of our current residents. And now it reaches 70. 70,000 per year. When you're looking at the allocation of these units within these bars. Can you continue to look at our community, who we are right now, and try to figure out a way to accommodate our children? And I appreciate the comment in regards to having roommates. My question is hopefully not too many roommates. To be able to continue to live here. I actually appreciate a lot of these comments. The jobs sustainable all those. But I'm I'm going to ask you, can you continue to try to figure out a way to accommodate our community
Speaker 6: ? The simple answer is, yes, we can and we will. I mean it. You know, one of my partners, Bruce Dorfman, often uses the term diversity by design. You know, we have a large enough project here to do that. We have 402 apartment units in the first phase. So we can serve by looking at units, sizes, finished packages. We can do a diversified product mix to try to target all different parts of that range. And that's you know, that would be our intent is to look at that. And I hear you. And yes, we will look at that. You know, we want this project to. Serve Alameda INS and, you know, not just people who don't live here, but the people who do live here.
Speaker 0: So I really appreciate hearing that. Not just the people that currently live on the other side of the bay. That are being pushed out. It still makes significantly more than the almeida's that are being pushed out in the Almeida and that are concerned every month if they're getting a rent increase where they're going to go. And we heard from those people that were concerned about senior housing that in fact have this concern of needing to downsize. They have the capital gains they need to invest to buy there. They, of course, are not going to be interested in buying, I assume, one of these higher end units that goes to. Another concern I had had where I feel that there was accommodation was looking at the condo overlay for the apartments. So can you speak to that?
Speaker 6: I think for Thompson Dorfman, it's very common for them to do a condo overlay condo map on all of their apartment projects. I know that in the two apartment projects that I've involved with them now that they do that. So if that the opportunity arises down the road that it makes sense to convert those to condos, that that option is preserved. And so, you know, we know that the market currently doesn't support condos. There's both not, you know, in the East Bay financing for development of condos, nor is there a deep pool of financing for.
Speaker 7: Buyers of condos.
Speaker 6: And so it's just not practical to do it. We're hoping, you know, with the success of Phase one, that, you know, and creating that there there, the place that, you know, we will have that opportunity in phase two. But we are putting those maps in place and phase one to preserve that opportunity for the future.
Speaker 0: Okay. Another issue. So I also appreciate vice mayor's effort to reduce the 800 units at the Northern Territory to offset this community wide. But not knowing the waterfront. Thank you. North housing. Okay, let's try.
Speaker 1: Again to.
Speaker 0: Reduce traffic. Traffic throughout our community. It's not just my. It's not just when. When you get off island. It is here in town. Mm hmm. You have made efforts to address that need, especially for those within that will be moving to these 800 homes. Which happened to be as we had a former slave as a former mayor to speak to. But 1/30 of our housing. We have another 30,000 out there of people that have this concern of how to how to travel within our community. Now in regards to. We have had. Representatives from other business communities come up here and speak in regards to supporting a transit throughout our community similar to the Emeryville go round. Have you given thought in regards to since you'll be representing a big part of the corporate part? I'll make a point of joining that effort to try to figure out a way to help with citywide.
Speaker 6: Yeah, no. I think one of the very exciting things about this project for me, I've had the opportunity in my career to put in place services programs, you know, shuttles, easy passes, but I've never had the opportunity to build infrastructure, to support transit. And so I think with this project, you know, we're going to get that opportunity. And I hope that can become a blueprint for other development in Alameda. And I hope we can be a catalyst for extending these programs to the rest of Alameda. We would like to be part of that conversation and continue, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. You know, I've lived here for 14 years, and I think this is the first time, you know, we all recognize we have traffic issues. We're an island. But I think this is the first time where I hear as many, if not more folks say, you know, talking about solutions other than simply no to new projects, particularly projects like these that offer benefits. And I think it is these development projects that have created that conversation. And it would be shameful if we didn't lever this and continue that conversation and continue these efforts to. Do what you describe and make this citywide.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Universal Design. That's another topic that was raised to make these homes as many as possible. Comfortable for people of all abilities, including those that are aging. Do you have an idea of what percentage or how your response to trying to make these homes qualify or be universally designed?
Speaker 2: 1/2 in just from.
Speaker 0: Missiles that's been that's coming back to us. Didn't I see that that the design.
Speaker 2: It's coming back.
Speaker 5: So in the development plan, there are universal design requirements. I can pull up the. But then when the design review comes, there will be more details on those aspects of the project as well. But the development plan does because of the concerns raised by the mayor and other folks there. There are provisions that are included in the development plan as well.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate that. I'm looking for what kind of percentage? What are we really talking about? And I'm actually speaking with our developer because he's the one I found to be able to go to his home. He lives over actually relatively close to us. So tell me about universal design.
Speaker 6: 100% of the apartments will be universal design and 10% of the townhomes minimum, 10% will be universal design.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Anything else you want to add regarding senior housing?
Speaker 6: I definitely think there's a need for it. I know our senior partner, our excuse me, our affordable partner, Eden, is.
Speaker 0: Actually at all levels. It's not just, you know.
Speaker 3: Oh, no, I know. And.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think it's important. I can we provide every product type in this project. I think, you know, again, Eden's looking at it very hard for the affordable component. Can we provide separate, you know, a separate senior project inside a I. I don't know. I don't think so. But I do think this council has the opportunity. There is more. You know, there's 1400 units of housing at Alameda Point. So I think the you know, you have the opportunity to to do that.
Speaker 3: At the point.
Speaker 0: And I'm not sure that we're talking about separate housing as much as being able to afford, whether you're renting or purchasing and then of being able to see universal design is what I what I'm hearing. If if so, another thing that goes to why it's important to have apartments and something to purchase at the lower end of but the more than likely not low market rate. That's already there. Solar energy. Another thing. So we have there is a development that's come in front of us in regards to all the homes will have solar but is on your homes. Have you have you considered having solar?
Speaker 6: We haven't looked at the exact strategies. I mean, you know, my track record, we're very big on renewable energies, on advanced technologies. You know, the VFL outdoor campus is the first net zero electric corporate campus in the Bay Area. And we did that by implementing, you know, mechanical systems that use no refrigerants, no compressors. So we cut energy significantly, therefore making it a much easier job to then offset the balance with solar. So big supporter of solar, a big supporter of sustainable technologies. How we implement those, we need to meet with AMP and look at programs. We'd like them to be a partner in this and how we deliver it. So that's something that'll come back before this, you know, before the governing body's here to as we go through our design review and look at our project going forward.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we do have another project that is 100% solar roofs on the homes as well as having the capability to charge an electric car. You know, things to be aware of. Um. I think that those were. All of my comments.
Speaker 6: Yes, Madam Chair.
Speaker 0: Just Member Desai.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you raised some important points with regard to having a project that not only fulfills the aspirations of local residents, but also addresses the substantive needs of of of local and future residents. And in looking at the data, in focusing specifically on housing and the extent to which the typical average median whatever household in Alameda that generates $75,000. Looking at the extent to which that typical Alameda household is accommodated by the housing types, let me just go quickly over two ways. We really went through the first way. The first way is that when you look at the for the affordable rents for the units that are designated for moderate income , we've talked about how that indeed, the the way in which moderate income is defined does capture persons making $75,000, whether they are one person households or two person households, possibly even three. But now we also want to talk about even the market rate units. Now, in the package that was presented to us, the organization had indicated that there is a product type at 17 with a monthly rent of 1750, and that's a studio. Right, and it's in there. Now, it's important to understand that 1750 because think about it this way, the way in which people qualify as whether or not they're living in affordable housing conditions is whether they're paying. Affordable is if you're paying at or below 30% of your income towards housing. So if your pay if your income is $75,000, therefore, 30% of that annual income of 35, $75,000 is $22,500. So a $75,000 household, if they want to live in a market rate unit, should not pay more than in on an annual basis, should not pay more than $22,500 towards housing.
Speaker 0: Now that I'm sorry, is that you're talking about rent? No, no, no. The net income, if they earn 75,000, what their net their take home.
Speaker 6: Is based upon the gross income, although I believe the ratios they use the 30% is based on. GROSS Yeah. So so 75,030% of 75,000 is 22,000 522,500 a year divided by 12 is 1875. So the typical household in Alameda, if you're $75,000 in income, you should not be paying more than $1,875 in rent. It just so happens that Alameda Point Partners has a product type that's 1750. Therefore, it accommodates.
Speaker 0: So my concern my concern is not how many units do you have at that level? No, not my concern, that is. But how many how many do you come up with?
Speaker 6: However many studios he has is how many studios? Okay.
Speaker 2: That's part of.
Speaker 6: What I'm trying to get at is on the end units, even the $75,000 in some way. I'm not saying in total, but in some way is accommodated by the project before us.
Speaker 0: And that is your point. My point actually goes to distribution.
Speaker 6: Of.
Speaker 0: Distribution, and that is a very serious concern of mine. And I actually believe it's a concern of this community, the people that come to meetings and are being pushed out. As far as I know, not many of them are making over 120,000 a year. The people that actually are feel like they cannot afford to live here. So this project, one thing that I'm going to say now, this is city property. This was a gift from my perspective to our community. And I really appreciate your efforts to actually respond accordingly and the community's interest in this. How does this meet the needs of our community? And that's why I bring up the distribution. We have real needs. We have real people that are being pushed out of this town that cannot afford to live here. I do attend the rec meetings and honestly, there aren't very many people in this room right now that do. And so that's why I think it's very important to have this conversation. And I recognize that there you know, I wanted to just recognize the fact that I took heart from the fact that renewed hope. And after all, it was a lawsuit brought by renewed hope that created the 25% affordable requirement at Alameda Point. They came out and supported endorsed this project. I heard Angela talk about who started the Alameda Renters Coalition also say that her group endorse this. And I, I do understand, Madam Mayor, your concern. And I think it's well founded, but it's also been pointed out that we won't solve all of society's ills. Or I can tell you, I was leaning towards voting for voting, pushing me. I really don't have to. I can tell you that's your choice. Straight up. So I was interested in if I could continue speaking. So from my perspective, this does need to meet the needs of Alameda and. I am very hopeful that you will continue to work with our community and continue to address these concerns moving forward. And that that's why I want to speak with you directly on these issues. And I know your you and your family are to, you know, actually significant parts of our community. You do a lot of give back. You do a lot of support. And I'm really looking forward to working with you as this and our community as this unfolds to make sure we're meeting the needs as best we can and as best you can and your team can to support the needs of Alameda. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I'd like to make a motion. Yes. I see three right here. Yes. I would like to move first that we adopted resolution upholding planning board resolution. Number? PB 1509. That's the approval of the development plan.
Speaker 0: I'll second. All those in favor.
Speaker 3: I I'd like to make a motion.
Speaker 2: One moment.
Speaker 0: Motion passes unanimously.
Speaker 6: And to be honest, there are three different things.
Speaker 2: Perhaps. So that's.
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 0: Well, a member or member.
Speaker 7: Odie May. I'd like to move. Introduction of ordinance approving a disposition and development agreement and related documents between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC. Or cite a development at Alameda Point.
Speaker 6: Madam Eric. Can I ask for a voice vote on this? Orocobre.
Speaker 0: Okay, so. So if you would read this emotion.
Speaker 7: Sure, Madam Chair, I would move. Introduction of ordinance approving a disposition and development agreement and related documents between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC, or the site a development at Alameda Point.
Speaker 6: And I'll second it that.
Speaker 0: You wanted a.
Speaker 2: Voice. Well, yes. Can I ask you why is. All right.
Speaker 0: So is that okay, Madam Stickler? Okay. Do you need do you need to call? So I think the fact that we had a motion and the second we had.
Speaker 2: The roll call, that is councilmember. Yes. As the Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: Yes. Matter.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Cody. I.
Speaker 0: Mayor Spencer. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have an it's an.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then I will do the third one. I would like to move introduction of an ordinance approving a development agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC for the site development at Alameda Point. No. You already seconded her, correct? We're all doing that. Correct. Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: I mean, if this is what we're doing, take it away, Madam Mayor. Then I will second that up. And did you want to voice vote.
Speaker 1: A roll.
Speaker 0: Call vote?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Stacy? Yes. As the Ashcraft.
Speaker 0: I matter if.
Speaker 1: I. Odie, i.
Speaker 2: Mayor Spencer.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Templeton. Wow. Thanks for.
Speaker 7: Getting us.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Tell me what you need. Okay. Okay. Already?
Speaker 0: Well, we're not giving it away. No, no, just now. All right, we have we actually have some other agenda items. So we're going to take a short break.
Speaker 1: But that's.
Speaker 0: 20. Rewind. We are now on o.
Speaker 3: 60.
Speaker 0: 6c0.
Speaker 2: The carrying to consider introduction of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 Dash 17 Density Bonus.
Summary Title:  Actions relating to the development of a 68-acre mixed-use project at Alameda Point Site A, including upholding the Planning Board’s actions concerning the Development Plan, the sale and lease of the property to a developer, Alameda Point Partners, LLC, and their development obligations, and a Development Agreement which provides additional certainty regarding the project to the City, the community and the developer.

Public Hearing to Consider: 
(1) Adoption of Resolution Upholding the Planning Board Resolution No. PB-15-09 Approving a Development Plan for the 68-Acre Mixed Use Development Plan in the Waterfront Town Center Plan Area Referred to as “Site A” at Alameda Point and Approving a Density Bonus Waiver; 
(2) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Disposition and Development Agreement (and Related Documents) between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC (APP) for the Site A Development at Alameda Point [Requires four affirmative votes]; and 
(3) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement between the City of Alameda and Alamed