Speaker 0: Assemble a public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance. Amending the Disposition and Development Agreement between Alameda Point Partners LLC and the City of Alameda for CI eight at Alameda Point. We have a staff member. Let's go. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slips.
Speaker 10: It even numeric council members. My name is Jennifer. Best for you as director here to recommend amending the State Aid, Disposition and Development Agreement for Alameda Point. What has happened. So the city council last heard this item. This was it was January. And the city council extended the closing date for the phase one parcel within sight from December 11 to April 11th. Since that time costs, construction costs, have escalated significantly, especially for the apartment blocks. And so block nine, for instance, is one of the apartment blocks in the phase one, the land value attributed to the cost. I just want to talk a little bit about land value is basically the revenue from vertical development, how much you can rent the units for versus the cost of building those units. And the difference between those is the residual land value that essentially becomes a revenue in the land perform a compared to infrastructure costs. And so when that land value gets reduced in this case by $8 million, there's less money to pay for infrastructure so that this construction cost increase has impacted the revenues in the land, perform on how much someone's willing to pay for improved land with infrastructure. So because of these this cost escalation, the financials no longer work without changes to the development plan for the site development plan and the disposition of development agreement. And because of that, I mean a point partners could not meet the April 11 closing date that was extended the next day. After they did not meet that closing date, the city council or the city staff issued a notice of default default on April 12th. So the very next day. And then allow me to point partners presented a plan to cure the default. So the current disposition development agreement DDA contemplates that if there is a default, there is a period of time and different ways that the developer can cure or essentially make up fix that that default. They were presented a plan within 120 days, which gets us to August 9th, which is allowed under the DDA with a proposal to amend the development plan and change amend the disposition the DDA, the Planning Board has unanimously on May 22nd approved the plan amendment. And so now here tonight we're here to essentially the second part of the cure of the default to two men, the DDA. I wanted to be clear, this is first with a development plan amendment. What does excuse.
Speaker 0: Me member already?
Speaker 9: I'm sorry. I just want to cut to the chase on a question. Yeah, if we approve this, is the developer going to have the financing.
Speaker 10: In place by.
Speaker 9: Well.
Speaker 10: So you are going to hear from the from the developer, that's all.
Speaker 9: I just really want to know at this point because if we're going to go through this and he's not going to have the financing that I'd like to know that. Okay, what if it doesn't? I'd like to know what happens.
Speaker 10: So as of as of today, the city does not have a feasible financing plan from the developer. And so you would need we would like to speak to that and and answer your question. Okay.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 10: So what the development plan doesn't what doesn't change? I just want to be clear. There's no change to the amount of development and the infrastructure being proposed as part of this project. There are no changes to the transportation improvements or the contributions towards transportation. What does change is the development plan that phases two and three are switched. So the land south of Atlantic that we don't yet own was phase two. That's now phase three. And phase two is the land north of the first phase. And I'll show this on a map, and that now becomes phase two. That's land that we already own. There are relocation of housing units onto cleaner property from phase two to the northern to the parcel north of phase one. And then there are moderate income units that are moved out of phase one and into a proposed Alameda Unified School District Employee Housing Project and phase two.
Speaker 0: And I'm sorry, do you have a question? Yes. So this developer is in default, correct. Is this presentation any different? Is that being taken into consideration from staff's perspective when they're presenting this presentation in lieu of the question for member Odie and there we are, we're not talking about a financial plan being presented.
Speaker 10: Well, we can talk about what the developer is going to stand up.
Speaker 0: Well, but is there a reason why staff honestly, is there a reason why staff is not talking about finances when the developer is in default?
Speaker 8: So the developer is in default until August 9th.
Speaker 10: Right?
Speaker 8: So they have between now and August 9th to come up with a financial plan. And then according to the DDA, there are other options for the developer.
Speaker 10: Well, let me just be clear that the finances depend on the land uses. There's no financial plan without a land use plan. And so the development plan directly affects the ability to finance the project. What is being built, how much of it, what phase is it in the timing of it? So you can't divorce those two things. That's why we have to talk about this. What's why the developer's proposal to cure the default had an amendment to the development plan attached to it because those things are very interlinked. The staff report went into attached about four different financial performance and talked about all the different summarized. Very in very detailed form the implications of those performance. And I'm happy to go over that. But what we're trying.
Speaker 0: To I actually I want to talk I so I just thought it was a good question from member.
Speaker 10: Already but all of these changes affect the bottom line the development plan changes. And we want to be clear what what the council is being asked to change. And the development plan here is moving the the housing that was in this phase which is on land that's has environmental restrictions and being moved here. And the commercial that was here is being moved now to south of Atlantic. The revised phasing is now this is phase three and this is phase two. And this stays phase one. The amendment that's before you is really the financial aspect, additional financial aspects of this. The deferral of four of the $5 million of sports complex sports complex payment is asked to be deferred from from phase one to phase three.
Speaker 0: And remember.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry, can we go back to that previous slide? I'm sure I have. So you mentioned the teacher housing. Can you point on the map for the upper and.
Speaker 1: Of the public.
Speaker 10: Right here? It's about 70 units of teacher housing, moderate income deed, restricted units for for a really employee housing for element of unified school district.
Speaker 9: And then can you tell us the difference between the square footage of commercial in the 2015 plan versus the square footage in commercial in the revised plan? There's no change. No change. No. Okay.
Speaker 10: And there's no change in the number of housing units.
Speaker 0: So then can you speak to where does this teacher housing come from?
Speaker 10: Yes, absolutely. So the way that this is and you can hear from the developer the special Ed, I.
Speaker 0: Actually want to hear from staff.
Speaker 10: That's fine. But the other.
Speaker 0: Thing I want to.
Speaker 10: Hear. Okay. So I can explain it. It was it was detailed in the staff report. But the.
Speaker 6: Report.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it is in the staff report. So the way that this works is that it would be essentially there are no unlike very low and low income housing units, there are significant public financing mechanisms to finance the very low and low. There are no essentially no public financing available for moderate income units other than market rate units. And so what this does is essentially and has been done in other locations and the developer can speak to that because they have actually built these projects, is that the developer, what it allows it to be done is that the school district helps finance the units with rental income from the moderate, from the units, and they essentially finance debt from a certificate of participation that the school district issues that would be between the developer and the school district. The school district has issued a request for proposals. They got two proposals. They have now narrowed those proposals exclusively to the side project and are evaluating it further. And so that that is between the school district and the developer. And this would be a way essentially to use public financing to help finance the moderate income units, which essentially improves the feasibility of the project to get at the financing.
Speaker 0: Are these in addition? So as my understanding, 25% of the 800 units are below market rate? That's correct. Are these part of the 200 units?
Speaker 10: This they are.
Speaker 0: The so under the first plan, anyone within our city would be eligible for the below market rate. And now the proposal is to limit some of those 200 units to a USD employees only.
Speaker 10: That's correct. Number two, there's 70. That would be through the school. District two would be part of the blockade, affordable housing.
Speaker 0: Those are not in addition to the 200 units that were in the past.
Speaker 10: They're part of the 200 units.
Speaker 0: And then to do those, A USD employees have to currently live in Alameda to be eligible.
Speaker 10: I'm not sure of the details. The developer specialized in this, and this would be part of the discussions and negotiations with the school district. They haven't finalized a deal. So some of that could be worked out through their deal, but it hasn't been done. So a deal has been done.
Speaker 0: So my understanding was under phase one, the 200 units, there's a list that the housing authority keeps. And people that are on that list currently would be given priority to those 200 units. Is there? So now it sounds like that the 70 units would be different from the way we currently. That's correct. Correct.
Speaker 10: That would that would be different.
Speaker 0: So it would actually reduce the number. It would not follow the same list that we currently use with our house.
Speaker 10: It would be different than the way it was contemplated before and being restricted to Alameda Unified School District Employees.
Speaker 0: Member asked.
Speaker 6: Clarifying question. Ms. that was part.
Speaker 3: Of sorry.
Speaker 6: Too much greeting. People at the parade yesterday was part of the intent of the proposed a USD housing the fact that the district is having a hard time hiring new teachers because they can't afford to live in Alameda.
Speaker 10: And I don't want to speak for the school district. My understanding and conversations with them that it's not just its employees. So not just teachers, but maintenance workers, cafeteria workers, but also new teachers, especially because they're there make less money when they come in. So it's really young. It's that the teachers that are starting off that have a hard time finding, being able to afford in Alameda. That's my understanding. I want to speak for them. But that's my understanding is it's really young, you know, new teachers and employees.
Speaker 0: So aren't new teachers and employees eligible to apply through the Housing Authority currently? Yes, everyone is right.
Speaker 10: Anyone that meets the qualifications of the moderate income units. That's correct.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 10: So the DDA amendments considers a number of of changes to the DDA to improve the feasibility of the project and then gets directly at the financing. And the ability to finance this project is really in order to finance a project and attract capital. The project has to show that it pencil's currently under with cost escalation. It doesn't pencil and that would performa was attached to the project that with the moderate income units and the $5 million sports complex payment, we did not we had a negative essentially revenues or costs exceeded revenue. So not a project you could finance. And this gets at the ability to finance the project and close by reducing the.
Speaker 0: Excuse me member already.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry. So I want to talk about this. So. Do we a couple questions. Do we have a guarantee that we're going to get that extra form, other $4 million?
Speaker 10: We is we do not. I mean, there what we have now is essentially is that this would get deferred to phase three. And if they didn't close on phase three, then we would not get this money. It is a risk.
Speaker 9: So then another hypothetical and this gets back to my first question about the financing. I mean, say, for instance, we do close, but then a week later we find out that it's not going to happen and we have the 10 million for the ferry on deposit. Right. But then all we have out of this is the 1 million for the sports complex. So we'll never see that. 4 million if that hypothetical.
Speaker 10: Correct. If if they don't close on phase three, then we would not see the $4 million. If we if we don't I mean, I think the question and we'll get to this and staff recommendation. I agree. It's a risk as it was in the staff report. We think it's a risk under the current the DDA that you had before you were getting the $5 million at closing for phase one. In this case, you wouldn't be getting until phase three. And there's a risk if they don't close that you don't get the 4 million.
Speaker 9: So it could happen again, hypothetically, that somehow this project doesn't go through. But the developer owns the land, not the city anymore. And then they would be able to sell it, presumably in the future and bank it without, you know, fulfilling this commitment to the sports.
Speaker 10: Well, they they can't own phase three land, so they can't ever own phase three land until they pay the 4 million.
Speaker 9: They can own phase one and phase two.
Speaker 10: Phase one, and they could own their own phase two, assuming they met all the conditions to close on phase two. What? They can't landbank the land. They have strict requirements to perform under both in terms of infrastructure construction and vertical construction. And so if they didn't meet certain milestones, one of them is completion of infrastructure, another is vertical completion. They would be in default of the DDA and the city could use its remedies under the DDA. Essentially they would be in violation of the contract. So they can't bank phase one. They have to perform if there are any reason they default on phase one. What the city gets up front before they close on phase one are the bond performance bonds for the infrastructure. It gets a note for the ferry terminal payment. It gets the $1 million in the bank before we close. So you have those. And then we would so let's say they default worst case scenario in phase one, they don't finish the infrastructure. We call on the surety bonds to essentially give us the money and then we perform that work. Those are our remedies if they default on phase one.
Speaker 9: Okay. I appreciate that. Then that's helpful information.
Speaker 0: Can you clarify from how many homes would be built under phase one and two before we get to phase all 800? So all 800 homes would be built. The profit would go to the developer from phase one and phase two and phase three. The city could get left with not being built.
Speaker 10: Well, phase three, under our current scenario, had no housing either. In the current did that?
Speaker 0: No, I appreciate that. Just because we didn't have a developer in default before, now we do. So that's why I think it's very important that we ask be allowed to ask these questions to staff. So I just wanted to clarify, all 800 homes are in phases one and two, and it's actually phase three. That is the commercial and the public benefits the way it's being at the the proposal.
Speaker 10: Well, that is true that there is no housing in phase three. I will say that it's you're not you're postponing the $4 million that but the vast majority of the infrastructure is still in phase one of the project.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate that. Thank you. All right, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: Relative to, you know, we're talking about the number of housing units being built. And there's obviously concern from the community relative to the amount of housing coming on board. What's the risk if the housing doesn't get built relative to our housing plan?
Speaker 10: Mean I think the risk if the how you mean in terms of the housing element correct. Or I mean, I think there's, you know, less housing that's built is less supply of housing, less affordable housing. And it's one I mean, there's 200 units of affordable housing here working closely with Eaton Housing. There would be 130 affordable, very low and low units that wouldn't get built if we didn't move forward. And that's part of the calculation that staff made. And Wayne, you know, to be honest, we don't these aren't changes. We didn't. These aren't changes that we like. These are changes that we think are necessary in order to be able to move the project forward and save the benefit of the backbone infrastructure as part of phase one. So there's this waiting calculation. And so you would the affordable housing and the very low and low is all in phase one. So you would get those benefit of those units towards your towards your housing. You know, towards housing construction in the city.
Speaker 4: And so what was going to happen if we had split them between phases one and two relative to our housing element? Because don't we report in eight year increments? So are we moving it up? Are we? How does this how would it in units?
Speaker 10: Aluminum point units are not currently in.
Speaker 2: Our.
Speaker 4: Housing plan.
Speaker 10: Housing is the housing element.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Statecraft.
Speaker 6: But just with regard to providing more affordable housing and we've heard a lot about the need for affordable housing, and apparently we're not going to have an accessory dwelling unit anytime soon. We if we weren't to go forward right now with this new proposed phase, that's that many units of affordable housing that we just won't add to Alameda.
Speaker 10: That's that's correct.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 10: So the other thing that's in the DDA amendment that we want to just be clear about is that there is an extension period between the April 11. So what? There's two ways that they can cure their default. One is to close and this gets it. Councilmember Ortiz question are they going to close? Is this going to do it? And you'll have you're going to hear from them directly. But there's two ways. One is to close by April 9th, because they've met all the requirements of the financing plan.
Speaker 6: If they don't come in August.
Speaker 10: I'm sorry, August. Sorry in August. I wish we had two different. But the second way is to X to essentially pay to extend the current DDA allows them to pay 50,000 per acre. To extend. What the changes in the day.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. 50,000 per acre to extend that then comes out of the 10 million for the ferry or is it in addition to that.
Speaker 10: So if so, it's in addition if they don't complete 50% of infrastructure, once they complete 50% of infrastructure, then that money would be credited.
Speaker 0: So it's not really as long as they satisfy that, then there really is no penalty.
Speaker 10: That's I mean, there's no penalty. It gets credited after.
Speaker 0: It gets credited. So there's not any additional profit or gain to the city.
Speaker 10: But I want to just clarify, because what we're saying here is there's those are the two ways that they can cure their default, either pay to extend or.
Speaker 1: Or.
Speaker 10: Close by August 9th. What this changes do is essentially covers this extension period retroactively to April 11. So they're essentially paying for their cure period, whereas technically. And so I just want to be clear, the changes here essentially start this. If they were to in either scenario, if they closed by August 9th or if they extend the city gets paid for 120 days as part of this option extension, extension. If they pay the option payment, then it would go for an additional eight months to April 11, 2018. But the city would get covered for those 120 days. That option payment, if it's made before August 9th, is, as you said, is is refund. It's potentially a refund. It's prorated to when they close because they may close before April 11th, 2018. And if they do, then there's a refund of how much they've paid for the period that they've used before they can close. The other is that after 50% of infrastructure, it gets credited. And so there is one of the documents on your chair or some changes to the amendment, the some changes that are made to just clarify what happens in the event that they take the second option of extending.
Speaker 0: Right. I want to clarify. You keep saying pay to extend. I think it's actually that they pay in advance, but it's not additional money. It is as long as they close and they get credit. So it's not it's not closed.
Speaker 10: It's only if they complete 50% of.
Speaker 0: Right. Which were which I would assume staff is hoping happens then if we are going forward. Yes. So in that scenario, then it's not new money to the city, it is just that they pay early and then they get a credit for it.
Speaker 10: So there isn't 150, there is $150,000 that is nonrefundable to the city essentially to pay for our transaction costs. Obviously, all these amendments require legal assistance and so and other.
Speaker 0: But still, that's to pay for the city's transaction costs, correct? So it is to offset costs that the city is sharing. All right. So I think it's important that we clarify that.
Speaker 10: That's right.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: Can you go over just the the infrastructure, the cost of the infrastructure that we're looking at and the timing for that?
Speaker 10: Sure. So the cost is about 40 about $43 million of, you know, infrastructure costs. It doesn't include total costs for phase one in the lab performed. When you take everything into consideration, it's about $80 million. Hard construction costs about 43. What was your other question?
Speaker 4: And the timing.
Speaker 10: On the timing. So within 30 days, they have to show us before close that they have a construction contract that's been executed. They have to have final permitted improvement plans, which they have demonstrated to us. SWEENEY And so and then within 30 days of close assuming again, as Councilman Otis question is assuming they can demonstrate does have a feasible financing plan then 30 days of close they have to start construction on infrastructure.
Speaker 4: And are there any infrastructure projects out there that will have to be completed regardless of if this project is completed or not?
Speaker 10: Are there? I'm not sure.
Speaker 4: Are there any infrastructure costs that the city is going to be on the hook for in the event that this project doesn't go through?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 3: Hmm.
Speaker 10: No. I mean, there are performance bonds that are posted prior to close that the that the city would the city would essentially, if they defaulted and halfway through their infrastructure or a quarter of the way through the infrastructure, then the city would call on the surety, collect that money, and then and then implement those improvements.
Speaker 0: Aren't those per phase, though? Yes. So phases one and two could be built with the 800 units of housing, and there's no guarantee that the third phase would be built.
Speaker 10: That. That's correct. They could not meet the requirements of the closing for phase three.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 10: All right. There are also lender requested clarifications on security financing. So this is what happens. This is these are all the worst case scenarios. What happens if there is an event of default? The lender requiring additional clarity about what happens in that case. These are very typical ones. Once you have a third party investor to clarify some of the things prior to closing, what we were very careful is that nothing diminishes the city's existing remedies to obtain the backbone infrastructure through the performance bond and the affordable housing obligations the $3 million in the event of a default. So they would they will have to post $3 million for the contribution for the affordable housing prior to putting a security interest on the property so that we know the city has access to the $3 million. And the bonds, of course, are posted or the surety is provided to us prior to close.
Speaker 0: If phase three is not built. How does the city get the 4 million?
Speaker 3: We don't.
Speaker 1: If if the.
Speaker 10: Phase three, if they don't close and they default on the deed because remember, this is a default on the DDA if they don't close on phase three because they are required under the DDA to complete all three phases. So if they don't close on phase three and they default on phase three, I'm getting to your answer that they don't then we don't get the infrastructure as part of phase three either. The package of infrastructure, we do not get it.
Speaker 0: So 80% of the 5 million then is what we're talking about. The city could, could lose under this new proposal.
Speaker 10: The 80%.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because they were supposed to pay the 5 million up front the first phase. And now that.
Speaker 10: We would not get the 4 million if they don't close on phase three.
Speaker 0: Yet for the sports complex member matter.
Speaker 5: Could part of this amendment require them to post a $4 million bond against that risk?
Speaker 10: I mean, we can you can ask the developer, we have asked that what we understand is that that's very expensive to purchase. But we I think we should have the developer come up here and answer that question. Would you like them to do that now or you want me to finish the PowerPoint? Yeah, but I think it's. I think.
Speaker 3: You will.
Speaker 10: Assessment of benefits. And then we're going to talk about assessment of risk. So the benefits, I think from staff's perspective, like I said, we we recommended a deal in 2015 that we thought was the best deal. These are changes to that deal that are essentially less favorable to the city. So we're not happy to stand up here and recommend this. We think that these are necessary to make the project feasible and to move the project forward. And we think that the benefits which I'm going to talk about now outweigh the risks and the potential downside. It's not perfect for what we do. The benefits is that we move forward with phase one. And there are significant we intentionally put a lot of the affordable housing and infrastructure in phase one so that we really frontloaded the benefit to the city. If they move forward with phase one, it can demonstrate a feasible project to us and we get those benefits associated with Phase one, which are 130 units of very low and low income, affordable housing, eight acres of parks and open space, a $10 million ferry terminal payment, which now we have the essential gap financing for. So we have a fully funded ferry terminal and major infrastructure improvements like the sewer line, the expedited infrastructure benefits.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, before you move on, you talked about the low and very low and workforce. Is that the total number of units of housing in phase one? The total number of units of.
Speaker 10: Housing, no. There's also market race housing like the town.
Speaker 0: Where is the market rate? What's the number for that?
Speaker 10: So it's it's 100 and 162 workforce are market rate units. So 130 minus the 674.
Speaker 6: It's in the staff report, 4548.
Speaker 10: It's essentially the it's about 540 market rate units. That includes 162 workforce unit.
Speaker 0: So phase one is 540 housing units total?
Speaker 10: No, it's.
Speaker 0: What's the number of housing units total? 674 674 674 of the 800 units are part of phase one.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Question on the.
Speaker 0: Number.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Ms.. On the 162 workforce housing units, are they what is called affordable by design?
Speaker 10: Correct.
Speaker 6: So they are smaller units and they will be priced accordingly. So although they're market rate, it's a different sort.
Speaker 10: Of and this is I'll be clear, these are according to Alman point partners. What they have said to us is that their units, based on the pricing that they currently have now, that pricing could change. But based on the size of the units in the current estimated market rate pricing, those units fall within 120, 180% area median income, which aren't deed restricted. So if the market value goes up, then those units, you know, presumably, you know, you hope incomes kind of go up too. But you have there is a potential for those units, but they are currently the way they're priced and designed to meet the 100 to that income range.
Speaker 6: And is that in response to things that have been heard from this council desires from this council?
Speaker 10: Yeah. And also and also the market that demands these smaller units. Yes. Both at both of those things. Thanks. So the expedited and I want to say is the phase two is now expedited by four years. So all the benefits in the phase two, which is north now, which would benefit the adaptive reuse area as well as the Main Street area and two point collaborative project is now expedited by almost four years that they'll be able to move that forward that much faster because the fact that we own the land and because of the the benefit essentially of kind of almost combining those two phases into a large phase. So it's expedited and then you have the benefit to Main Street. And after reuse areas, the relocation of housing on to cleaner properties.
Speaker 0: Is a nice mayor.
Speaker 4: Can you explain why that why that would be expedited? Is it does it have to do with putting in the infrastructure or is that the connection or what's the what's the reason that it's expedited? Well.
Speaker 10: So the phase two, it's phase one is obviously same schedule.
Speaker 4: But I'm saying why why would it expedite? I'll be more specific. Why would it expedite the Main Street Neighborhood Project and Alameda Point collaborative projects?
Speaker 10: Well, so the Main Street and adaptive reuse depend on infrastructure like the West Tower Avenue. Mm hmm. And that was before part of phase three. Mm hmm. And so it benefits them because by expediting that and having that happen faster, they can then take advantage of the efficiencies and tie in to that infrastructure that's now been brought closer to their property. Mm hmm. And the same with adaptive reuse. West Tower Avenue is the main kind of arterial into the reuse area. So now you have infrastructure in that area. It's far. You don't have to go as far to pick up that infrastructure.
Speaker 4: So if this project doesn't go through, how would that impact those projects?
Speaker 10: If the project, then the projects would have to pay for the Main Street if Main Street were to go forward. And that phase one of Main Street that we've talked about, what the market rate in the cloud, we would have to find a way to build infrastructure without side A we've looked at we've looked at those numbers and they'd have to build the sewer line, for instance, all the way from the, um, from the project. It, it strains the ability. It's a pretty big infrastructure hurdle. We would have to look carefully at how we would make that work so effectively.
Speaker 4: We would have to completely redo those projects or at least look at redoing them because.
Speaker 10: Like we had talked about trying to do more workforce housing as part of that project, we probably wouldn't be able to afford to do that, or we'd have to be looking at lower density, more higher value products there. We'd have to look at all kinds of things. I think we need to we want to see what happens here to be able to really craft that RFP in a way that we want to give certainty to those developers or some certainty to those developers coming in for Main Street and it is dependent on site and what they'd have to pay for.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 10: So we also think there is a benefit to relocating the housing on to the cleaner property that's currently owned by the project. It allows it to be built. It could be built on that other property, but there would be no restrictions in terms of ground floor and some additional vapor barriers that would need to be built. This kind of takes that off the table. Improve land use consistency with the enterprise district. We think having that commercial on the south, which is closer to enterprise district, has more land use consistency as well. Now let's be clear, we want to be very honest about this. We think there are risks. We've we've assessed those risks. We want to disclose those publicly. We do believe, because we didn't we believe that moving the moderate income units are we've looked at the performa without the Army, the unified school district project that phase two doesn't pencil. There is not sufficient market rent units to support the 70 moderate income units because the school district is essentially a public financing mechanism for helping to pay for those this works with. We are indications from the way that the school district process is going is that's looking good. We know that our developer has experience building this, but there is a risk that phase two does not pencil without the AC project. So we want to be clear about that feasibility of phase three and sports complex payment. These are the questions you're bringing up. We, too, want to be really clear about that. A commercial only project. It works financially and it generates an internal rate of return. But it really depends on a a stronger market than you currently have out there for commercial. So the idea is that you build phase one, you build all those amenities, you start to build and then you then you're going to get commercial values that are higher that are out there today. The phase through phase three performa depends on that increased commercial value to be able to support the sports complex payment and the infrastructure in phase three. So there is risk that you don't achieve the commercial values and if you don't, then there's a chance that the project doesn't phase three project does not move forward. There's also a risk of not moving forward, which is, I think, Councilmember one of the councilmembers questions. I think if you don't, this is really the staff's kind of grappling with how to what to recommend to you tonight. It's not simple. It's not easy. And I think for us, we really weighed the risk of not moving forward is essentially looking for another developer to potentially step into their shoes, take a 2 to 4 years to do that through a solicitation process, a transaction process. And it's likely that they will face if we don't go into an economic downturn in that period, some of the same challenges of construction costs and that we're having to move forward with a project that's a different than what we have now. You know, we can't say for sure we don't have a crystal ball that that's what's going to happen. But there are risks of not moving forward. And the alternative is delay. And the alternative is that the phase one amenities and affordable housing is delayed. Is there also a risk that this still doesn't move forward? Yes, but we think the benefits, potential benefits of getting the Phase one infrastructure and amenities outweigh the risks to those future phases and phase two and three. And that's why we're recommending this to you tonight.
Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So I'm perhaps the developer might be the the one to answers, but let me ask it have you missed it? So it does seem like a lot is riding on these 70 moderate income units as part of an ESG project. But the school district is a separate entity from the city. And we you know, we have no control over what they do or don't do. Is there a plan B if the school district project doesn't come through for so.
Speaker 10: I know. Yeah, I think it's a valid question and you're absolutely right. That's why we see it. I mean, that's why we felt it was such a risk that we really wanted to disclose because we don't control that. The council doesn't control that does. Is it all looking good like it's headed in the right direction? Yes, but I we don't the plan B, they are evaluating plan B, we can ask them. But I think the plan B is that I understand those contingency would most likely require an amendment to our settlement agreement with renewed hope because they wouldn't meet that agreement. And so it would mean, for instance, we do all very low, low because there are other public financing mechanisms out there. But that's not what's specified in our current settlement agreement with renewed hope, which says you have to do 9% moderate. So if you were to able you switch those units to very low, low, for instance, and you then you'd have access to tax credits and other sources of financing, you're not building the moderate income units. And so it's hard to say that we have a clear cut plan B because they require other parties, again, that, you know , we would need to have further discussions with.
Speaker 0: So doesn't the school district have property out of Alameda Point currently that they're planning to do. They're considering doing AOC housing on. They do. So this would then be in addition to that for a USG employees.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 10: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then the people that are currently on the housing authority, that list for housing, then they just get bumped because they don't work for current, they don't work for Alameda Unified.
Speaker 10: You were correct that there's a different process and that the process would prioritize some employees and teachers.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Quick question. Should I? I forgot it.
Speaker 10: Well, let me finish. If it comes to you, you can interrupt me now.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I remember it. Could you kind of update us on the status of where the school district is on this?
Speaker 10: Yes. So the school district did just take a vote to they had two proposals that they received to therapy and they took a vote to continue to evaluate the site, a proposal. So now there's only one proposal that they're evaluating and they have hired economic consultants. I've had conversations with them and they are reviewing now the site proposal in more depth. So there's no one else that they're evaluating except for the site proposal.
Speaker 9: I mean, I know, as I think my colleagues, that we can't really put ourselves in their shoes. But I mean, are they on track to get this signed, sealed and delivered in time for closing, or do they have some other deadline or so?
Speaker 10: I don't think this would happen. Well, it would not happen by the August 9th closing date if there is an extension that's done. You know, if they decide to take that other half of pain for additional time, then possibly. But I don't know the timeline exactly. I know that they are working. I mean, they're taking action. They're working hard on it. They were having consultants review it. I've had conversations, so I know it is moving forward. But the next step, I imagine, is to evaluate it, recommend, you know, that they move forward and they'd have to do a transaction with the developer, which, as we know, takes time.
Speaker 3: Yes. Okay, thanks.
Speaker 10: So I just want to be clear what we're recommending. The DDA amendment is that we're recommending updates to the phasing plan, performance milestones and infrastructure package consistent with the approved development plan amendment, providing an extension, allowing them to have an essentially an extension payment for the cure period. So the period 120 days and to allow the changes to essentially move forward with an extension payment for, you know, to elect to take an extension payment for a full year going back to April 11th being a start. So additional eight months, if they elect to do that, that could be refunded any portion of that be refunded if they closed sooner and then credited once they complete the 50% infrastructure. It defers the $4 million sports complex to phase three and then facilitates these lender requested clarifications on essentially the security for the financing and for the loan. And I'm happy to take more questions. I'm also happy to have the developer stand up here and answer some of your questions. I do think it's important to hear from them why they want their why they need this and what their what the status of their financing plan is. So I'm I will turn it over to them when after your.
Speaker 0: Can you go over what, phase three under the new proposal, what phase three would include.
Speaker 10: Sure. Let me go back to I can scroll here. So there is a O here. So phase three now is down here. And it includes this parcel. It includes about.
Speaker 0: How many square feet of commercial.
Speaker 10: Square feet at 500,000 square feet.
Speaker 0: And how many square feet of commercial are in phases one and two.
Speaker 3: More than.
Speaker 10: 170. So 400 and phase three and 172, almost 200,000 in phases one and two.
Speaker 0: Okay. So what else is in phase three?
Speaker 10: Oh, there's a hotel that's included in that. Square footage.
Speaker 0: The approximately 400 square feet of commercial. What else?
Speaker 10: And then there is promenade improvements here. Yeah. The park here which. And then the park here, this retail center, that's part of the commercial square footage here. And then you have infrastructure essentially brought down closer to the enterprise district. So there's infrastructure improvements as part of this as well. Now, phase two is here and you get the park for this as part of phase two. This is now the new phase two.
Speaker 0: So. Okay. So I just wanted to comment that is very small for us to be able to decipher what you're referring to. In the future, maybe you could do two slides, so it's visible.
Speaker 6: I would just say just for clarification, when we're reading on our iPad, so you can always.
Speaker 0: So I appreciate that, but we're trying to do a public meeting here. So the public I'd like to be able to be able to see this, too. So thank you. Okay. So so the so that's commercial, right? So what if the developer does phases one and two with the 800 units of housing? And also, I'd like you to confirm it's my understanding that the deal with the Navy is, in fact, to focus on jobs, not housing.
Speaker 10: Right. I mean, the deal with the Navy says that it really focused on jobs. And that's why we have the 1425 housing unit cap at the point.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if phases one and two are built and not phase three, then is it possible for the city to for a developer to be able to build these things that you were speaking to the commercial, as well as the 4 million for the sports complex for the city to be able to get that that the city would would need to consider additional housing units.
Speaker 10: So based on we required them to provide us with a performa for phase three that demonstrated to us what their assumptions were for phase three, so that we could then we could look at exactly what you said. Is this are you just postponing this? Can you really afford with a commercial development to pay for the infrastructure in the sports complex payment they have provided us that performa was attached to the staff report. What it shows is that yes, it does. But I will say and this was one of the risks, I said it assumes commercial land values at higher levels than we.
Speaker 0: Currently than we currently have right now.
Speaker 10: Seems to me that all the benefit of a phase one will generate you'll generate higher commercial values because of all the amenities and housing that will be built. If that assumption doesn't come true, then it could be that phase three is not feasible.
Speaker 0: Could you turn to slide nine? That's where you say that. So that the only way under the current proposal, the only way this makes sense with phase three is in fact if commercial rates are higher than they currently are. When was the last time commercial rates were higher than they currently are?
Speaker 10: Well, commercial rates do go up and have gone up in the city.
Speaker 0: So that do currently. When when was the last time commercial rates are higher?
Speaker 10: They are gone up considerably over the last couple of years and pretty significantly highest rate. And we've had what we did we did have our financial consultant review this and to review the assumption. And what he said is basically what I'm telling you, which is, Jenn, do I think this is possible if all of these amenities are built? Could they achieve these values? Yes. Is there a risk that they don't I mean, yes. That these are aggressive values that there and and but we do think that in the realm, given all the amenities and infrastructure that are being built, that you could achieve them. There is a risk, though, that.
Speaker 0: You know, my question was, when was the last time commercial rates were higher than they are now? Isn't this the highest that we have seen them?
Speaker 10: Well, but every we've seen in the last five years, if you look at the trend is growth.
Speaker 0: I know. But currently. So regardless of what is this risk is whether or not your your statement is commercial only phase requires sufficiently strong market to support it actually requires a I believe this is what I want you to clarify a stronger market than what we currently have. It doesn't pencil out at current rates. That's what you're saying, right?
Speaker 3: That's correct.
Speaker 0: So it doesn't pencil out current rates. And current rates for commercial are actually the highest that we've ever seen.
Speaker 10: Well, it's also the type of product, so you can hear from them.
Speaker 0: But so I appreciate that. But I know.
Speaker 10: But I want to say is that we think that there's there's a market for office higher intensity development like office R&D, whereas now we really see more light industrial. So what we're saying is that you're you're going to be able to attract higher intensity, higher value commercial uses because you have amenities and other things there. You have housing. So currently there's not a market for office at all going to point. But we think because of the amenities and things being provided, phase one, that there is a possibility, a real possibility that you could achieve that as part of phase three. Can we tell you now that that's a for sure guaranteed we can't. And that's why we want to disclose that there is a risk that you don't.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Resort member Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: You would would you say that these estimates and projections are on the conservative side?
Speaker 10: I, I would say that on the phase three commercial values there, they tend I don't think they're extremely aggressive, but I think they're on the more aggressive side. They're not on the conservative side.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 10: So we think they're in the realm of reasonable and we've had our financial consultant review them and they think they're in the realm of reasonable. But they do assume that you're getting a higher value product like office for at least some portion of the square footage.
Speaker 0: Okay. Member Odie.
Speaker 9: I just want to check the pulse of my colleagues. If we would like to hear from the developer, maybe ask them some questions.
Speaker 6: Slightly.
Speaker 9: Before we go into public comment.
Speaker 1: Or.
Speaker 0: So. I just think I'd like to.
Speaker 6: Comment, but I'd like to hear from you. We've heard from this. I would like.
Speaker 10: To hear and I think some of these questions about the commercial I think would be great because we do have a commercial developer as part of their team, Joe Ernst, and he can answer some of these questions and explain to you his assumptions as well. But I wanted you to know that we vetted them independently as well.
Speaker 0: So we have about 12 speakers from the public. My preference would be to go to them at this point. But would counsel like to do?
Speaker 5: Madam Mayor, I'd like to hear the answer to the financial question, and I think the public is going to come up and speak, might benefit, might want to hear that, too.
Speaker 0: So in regards to that comment. So who would like to speak on behalf of the developer in regards to the financial question?
Speaker 5: Well, I actually have a little presentation there. Some comments I would like to make. What's before you is essential for the success of this project, and we are committed to the success of this project. A firm indication of that is we're prepared to fund a million and a half dollars in order to pursue this extension as it's which is above and beyond or greater than what was underwritten or required in the DDA. So I think that that's intent of our good faith to move forward here. But I'd like to without, you know. Restating everything that you've heard in the past. And it costs have gone up they have gone up dramatically for construction projects throughout the bay area. This is not unique to alameda. Revenues are neutral to somewhat negative. And we've seen that those have been, you know, headline stories we have just contracted for in capitalized $135 million project in Oakland, downtown Oakland, that we hope to start in the next several weeks. And the project's hard costs have increased nearly 30% in the three years since we've been involved with that. So it's an indication of that project is is largely a union. The remainder of it is commercial prevailing wage. So we have a good sense of what these projects that we're proposing here on Alameda Point are going to cost. And our objective has always been, one, to maintain the integrity of the master plan, all of the public improvements, the parks, the commercial area, the quality architecture, the affordable housing, these are all elements and we haven't changed those elements. We want to build those elements since we were last in front of you in January. We've completed a there's been a lot of progress on a number of fronts working with the city. The ferry terminal has been financed, so we have a ferry that's ready to go. All first phase sites are approved, are entitled with the exception of BLOCK nine and BLOCK nine went through a study session in May and we think that was a good study session and we think will be approved in the next 90 days. All phase one infrastructure improvements are approved, permitted and contracted. We have a PSA with a builder on a purchase and sale contract with a builder on block blocks six and seven, as was mentioned. And we can talk more about it. A USD is very supportive our of our proposal to build teacher and faculty workforce housing on block 15. AP has committed to the extension of the DDA. We've received VASH certificates and VPI and AHP funding for BLOCK eight. The Navy has conveyed and store line draft or excuse me has conveyed storm drain line G and the city has acquired now all the first phase land which it didn't have when we were last in front of you. We've resolved and remediated new on site contamination contamination issues which relate to BLOCK nine. The continued phase zero activities, including what Vive's return, has been an ongoing success. The containers have been acquired for the Container Village and we're currently processing permits. Number 12 Planning Committee. The Planning Board unanimously approved the RE phasing the relocation of housing units from blocks one, two and three to block 15, which move the residential units off the Navy's environmental remediation area and adjacent to the Main Street area, and the relocation of the mod of the monitoring units and the introduction of workforce teacher housing was something that they supported and as previously noted, 50% of the entire 800 units are affordable. I want to talk a little bit about, since it's come up about the moderate units, the moderate units in the city of Alameda for one bedroom, the moderate rent is 20 $300. The two bedroom unit is 20 $800. The three bedroom unit is 30 $200. Through our program that we're proposing without with a U.S. city, we're looking to achieve rents of 1500 dollars for a one bedroom unit, $2,000 for a two bedroom unit, and 20 $500 for a three bedroom unit. We can do this. We have done it with other school districts throughout the Bay Area. We work exclusively with school districts in which we are developing and it's our way of giving something back to those communities. And consequently, we think this is a very promising program and a great development for our site.
Speaker 0: Before we move on, are you guaranteeing those dollar amounts?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: No, we're not making them. But I can.
Speaker 0: You may continue.
Speaker 6: What are you doing, Mr. Dorfman?
Speaker 3: If you're guaranteeing.
Speaker 5: I can tell you that the rents are set at levels that cover 100% of the operating costs and the principal interest on the bonds and a reserve. And based upon those rents, we have achieved these these rental rates before. And we will we think that it's achievable here as well.
Speaker 0: But you're not willing to guarantee them?
Speaker 5: We don't guarantee we can't guarantee the success of our project once we build it. That's a function of the market. It's a function of a lot of things that are outside of our control. But we can what we can do in. We do successfully. And the reason why we're here is we lay a foundation that allows for success. So we're comfortable that this will move forward. We're confident that we can achieve these objectives.
Speaker 0: Are you guaranteeing phase three will be built?
Speaker 5: As I said, we cannot guarantee things that. Can you guarantee phase three is going to be built? I don't think so.
Speaker 0: I'm actually asking the developer is the developer's job. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Number Ashcraft So I'm staying on the the school workforce housing for the moment. Mr. Dorfman, have you built these sorts of projects in other jurisdictions?
Speaker 5: Yes, we built them in San Mateo, Redwood City, and also in Santa Clara.
Speaker 6: And they're completed. They're up and.
Speaker 5: Running. Yes. Okay. Yeah. There's a track record. And and really, as teachers in particular are getting priced out of these markets, I think it's incumbent for recruitment and retaining of particularly entry level teachers that school districts move forward with these sorts of programs.
Speaker 2: And we're out of here.
Speaker 6: Sorry. Oh, sorry. The rest of the question and the model that you're proposing with a USDA workforce housing is the same or similar?
Speaker 5: Well, it's actually somewhat better by virtue of the fact that we can control the land and the infrastructure through the current phasing of the project. One of the reasons why the school district was looking at its site out at the base but is having trouble underwriting is the fact that there is infrastructure costs of a million and a half per acre. Those costs go away because we're providing that infrastructure.
Speaker 0: Now member.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Just a quick question on the teacher housing. So two parts. I mean, can you tell us about the occupancy rates in the previous projects you've done for teacher housing and then what the what the plan is if you don't have enough uptake? Sure. If we don't have all of the units rented by teachers, the demand isn't there.
Speaker 5: Sure. Well, first off, relative to the other programs and this goes back to 2001, the occupancy rates have always been virtually zero or excuse me, virtually 100% vacancies in virtually zero. They've had waitlists because there's so much under market. So it has been a real inducement for those school districts. And each one of those school districts is looking at expanding their teacher housing communities. With regard to the benefits of the Second Amendment of the DDA to the city, it does allow re phasing to develop housing outside of the contaminated areas and adjacent to the Main Street neighborhood. This infrastructure is important for the Main Street neighborhood to move forward and it also retains the proposed commercial square footage and plan and that is being moved adjacent to the enterprise zone. So it's a it's it's tying in real well to the overall plan in which the site is nestled. It moves 32 moderate units to block 15 to allow the AUC teacher housing staff to move their teacher staff housing to move forward. It expedites delivery of phase two land and phase three land, and it provides $150,000 payment to the city as part of our extension. I'd also like to just add that if this doesn't move forward, what the city forgoes is the new ferry. It forgoes 200 affordable housing units. It forgoes thousands of local and high paying construction jobs. It forgoes all the parks that are part of this plan. It forgoes the revitalize revitalization of Alameda Point and the improvements for site B and the neighborhood, the Main Street neighborhood. It forgoes $500,000 of sports complex payments that were still scheduled to make it forego 600 units of market rate product that will relieve the burden on the remaining housing stock that you have. One of the reasons why you had so many issues with rents rising is because there isn't an outlet for new residents or higher paying residents to move. Clearly, that's a target for us. And I will further add that, you know, virtually all of the multifamily units and 10% of the townhome units are a universal design. There's a lot of pluses that are part of it. We're at a critical juncture here, as we've shared with city staff and city staff has communicated to you. We're at close to a break even on this. We're willing to move forward on that basis. We need these concessions. To the extent they're concessions, I think it's a win win. But nonetheless, we request your consideration. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any other questions?
Speaker 9: Remember, I still had my original question. Are you going to be able to get the financing? I mean, I am still waiting on an answer to that.
Speaker 5: Yes. I am confident we are going to get the financing by.
Speaker 9: What do I do? You have an idea.
Speaker 5: We are still negotiating right now. Again, the our negotiations are somewhat contingent upon what happens tonight, but this will certainly move it forward.
Speaker 0: And can you clarify, is that the financing for phase one or for all three phases?
Speaker 5: This is financing for phase one. So phase one is, if I may. Phase one is roughly a $500 million project.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you're confident you're going. So when you say so, you're saying you're confident you're going to get financing for phase one? What about phase two?
Speaker 5: I think that phase two financing. I'll let Joe speak to the commercial component. But for the residential component, yes, I'm confident we can get the financing for that.
Speaker 0: Okay. And what about phase three?
Speaker 5: I'll let Joe speak to the commercial component.
Speaker 0: Okay. Got it. Any other questions from counsel?
Speaker 6: No, but I think we want to hear from Mr. Ernst.
Speaker 0: So I'm hoping that whomever is going to stand up next can is prepared from the developer side to answer all the questions so that we can then get to public comment. Mr. Owens, would you like to try to help us out on this here?
Speaker 1: So the questions are phase two and phase three commercial, is that correct?
Speaker 0: Apparently, that's what he's not able to answer. He said to go to you.
Speaker 1: So, yes. So the phase two commercial I have we have a partnership, the same partnership that is currently doing Buildings nine and 91 rehabbing those buildings are the same partners I have for the phase one and phase two commercial, which specifically includes Blocks ten, 16, 17 and 15. A It's about 267,000 square feet of commercial there. And so we've, you know, through our activity in marketing nine and 91, we are seeing a lot of interest. Some of that interest is contingent on seeing site go forward. So but we are having success. It's requiring a lot of concessions, it's requiring a lot of work, but it's planting the seed and the whole argument with, you know, phase the moving commercial to phase three. I mean, I think we're still pretty balanced. We're still offering the same amount of commercial. But you could argue the phase three commercial is kind of following the same arguments that we've had about site B that, you know, we need to create A there there with, you know, amenities, housing, infrastructure, transit. You know, we're still committing $600,000 a year to transit programs for site. We are we are negotiating a lease right now for building nine at a buck 33 per square foot net. We have pro forma and phase three which is ten years out at only a buck 85 net. So I feel like we've been very conservative. If you look at this, downtown Oakland. Oakland is now the hottest market in the country for office space in terms of rent growth and vacancy. And why is that? It's because now there's a there there in the last cycle with Jerry Brown's ten K plan, we now have people living in downtown. Restaurants have moved in and now businesses want to be there. That's the same thing we're going to do at City.
Speaker 0: Okay. But can you answer the question?
Speaker 3: What's the question?
Speaker 0: Are you confident you're going to have financing for all of phase two, including the commercial? I am.
Speaker 1: Confident we will have.
Speaker 0: Financing. Are you willing to guarantee that there.
Speaker 1: Are no guarantees in this.
Speaker 0: Business? The answer's no. Okay. What about phase three?
Speaker 1: I'm confident we will be able to raise the financing, but I can't guarantee that.
Speaker 0: Okay. And will you bond out that it's.
Speaker 1: Not bond double? There's nothing to bond today.
Speaker 0: So is there anything you can put up then that the city has assurances that the complete project will be built all three phases because the housing is in the first two phases.
Speaker 1: I mean, just just my word and reputation, given what we've done over 20 years in this in Alameda, we've developed 3 million square feet. You know, we took over Harbor Bay Business Park in early 2000. There was 100 acres of vacant land that had been through bankruptcy twice. And we've now developed it all with good companies, now very high tax generator for the city. So, yes, based on our track record, I'm very confident we can do that.
Speaker 0: But you don't think there's any mechanism or tool that can be offered to the city to guarantee that those phases will be built in entirety?
Speaker 1: I think the best guarantee for phase three to be built is to get phase one built.
Speaker 0: You don't think there's any kind of bond that can be put up for the city?
Speaker 3: There's nothing.
Speaker 0: Personal.
Speaker 1: There's no market for a bond like that.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Any other questions from counsel? All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the public speakers then. Thank you. I'm Mike Gaines. And if you guys could if you could line up the first three or whatever so that we can try to move this along. Mike Gaines, it looks like. And then David Craig. Leslie Cameron, thank you.
Speaker 5: Hello, counsel. My name is Mike Gaines. I'm the director of the Board of Your Society, a circus dance and performance company that has perched its 12,000 square foot tent out on the taxiway. Three months this year and three months last year. We've brought more than 10,000 people through to our events, and we just finished a successful run of a dinner theater show for the past month. And we lost our space in San Francisco two years ago to development and and met shortly thereafter Joe and his partners. And they open their arms to us and gave us a place to perch this monstrosity of a tent. And we have. So I'm really here as to support the character of the people that I know who, again, have opened their arms and helped subsidize some of our our stay here. And we've since moved 60 of our casting crew to Alameda. We rehearse there on a daily basis. And the economic impact isn't huge of my company on Alameda but you know over over time.
Speaker 7: And it has been.
Speaker 5: Substantial we believe we also produce corporate large corporate events and we brought C-2 out for a 21 day stint on and they used our tent. And so we we. We love our mirror in in the way that we are have invested all of ourselves in it and and support this project to its fullest. And.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, David Gregg. Then Leslie Cameron. And that might be what it is.
Speaker 1: And good evening, Mayor. Members of the Council, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Daniel Gregg. I'm a field representative at Carpenters Local 713 and Hayward. I represent approximately 35,000 carpenters in Northern California. Encourages me to see a development.
Speaker 5: Team move in the right direction by continuing to commit to the city of Alameda, the surrounding community, and to labor. Alameda Point site will indeed revitalize.
Speaker 1: The surrounding area. This project provides much needed housing for both market rate. And even as we begin to see rent stabilize a significant amount of affordable housing, it will include hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial and retail bringing jobs back to Alameda. The developer is also committed to the use of a responsible general contractor. A commitment to labor on a project like this means certified apprenticeship, local hire and the payment of area standard wages and benefits, which is a living wage. This creates career pathways for good paying, head of household jobs for individuals who will place money back into the local community.
Speaker 5: Perpetuating economic growth.
Speaker 1: And closing the Carpenters Union fully supports this development. We ask council to accept staff's recommendation.
Speaker 5: And move it forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Leslie Cameron and then Jim Summers.
Speaker 3: Hello.
Speaker 2: Mayor and council members. My name is Leslie Cameron, and along with my partners, we own Bay Shipping Yacht Company here in Alameda. And I'm going to be very brief without reiterating any of the points anyone else has made, just to say that the time is now and we support this project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Jim Summers. And then Kari Thompson.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mayor. Members of the council. Good to be here this evening to support this project. I'm vice president of Silvergate Construction. We are a company was founded right here in Alameda in 1932. Seeing the history of Alameda, how it's built out and we're excited to be a part of this project. For the last 18 months, we've been working closely with Alameda Point Partners. They're a very professional and knowledgeable group. They have challenged us to be. What I would call sharpen our pencils and understand how they can get value engineering done, get the best price possible to make this project work. This project will employ hundreds of people. Right now, we currently employ over a thousand people during the peak of the construction season, and all of them are local operators, laborers, all in the union. We're ready to mobilize on this project as soon as we get a green light from Almeida Point Partners. We worked with many of the different groups over the last 15 years that have looked at this project and tried to bring it to fruition. And I would say that with my personal knowledge of the different groups that I've worked with over the last 15 years, budgeted for given estimates, too, I'd say that the group that you have here right now before you is the group that's been the closest that I've ever seen to getting this done. They have a group that is dedicated to making this project work. Track record, as you heard from Mr. Ernst earlier and Mr. Dorfman earlier. Anecdotally, I want to stress that something that Mr. Dorfman said, that the prices have gone up. You know, this isn't the only project we work on. We're working on literally probably dozens of projects throughout the Bay Area, from the peninsula all the way into the North Bay. The 30% number that he used is very accurate. We're seeing every one of the builders and developers that we work with and literally we work with almost every one of them, the Bay Area, they're having the same challenge. The vertical costs are going up dramatically and they're trying to adjust to make it work. When you look at the amount of equity that they put into this project already and what they've accomplished so far, faced with the option of moving forward and trying to restart the process, I think you'd be well served to approve this tonight and let them get across the finish line. I hope that you approve this this evening, because I know that this will be the first step in letting the redevelopment and reuse of Alameda Point provide many jobs and much housing that's needed in Alameda. Appreciate your concern and approval this evening. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Carrie Thompson and the Michael McDonough.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm Kerry Thompson. I'm the chairperson for the Government Relations and Economic Development Committee for the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. And we fully support this project. We would like to see that this may have been a bump in the road, but that this road will continue to get paved and maybe even a wonderful road down the road, down the line. The option of it not happening is unthinkable. At this point, it really is. Nothing has been done for far too long. And so it needs to continue. And if there are changes that need to be made, they need to be made from a banking perspective. I fully understand that they need this process tonight to go forward. Otherwise it is hard to get financing. Nobody wants to do anything on something that there is no guarantee from anybody. And as you heard, they cannot guarantee the future is is uncertain for everyone. I mean, we don't even know if tomorrow is going to come. So, you know, in the long run, this just makes sense to continue to go forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Michael McDonough and then Linda Astbury.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor. The rest of the council and staff. I'm Michael McDonagh, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. After Mitt. I'm a little upset right now. I can understand being a little cautious after a developer going into default, but I can also understand that it was a design strategy that was actually agreed upon in the initial DTA that this could happen. Nothing said tonight was not something that was planned for previously. And you know, we have, as the Chamber of Commerce have always been very respectful to everyone here on the dais. But tonight, I'm a little upset. I do understand cautiousness. But what I don't understand. Is being worried about the risk of not getting $4 million and a sports complex. Isn't the real risk not having. A modern infrastructure for the existing businesses out on Alameda Point that really need that in order just to operate their business. Now, I don't know what caused this power outage over the weekend, but it's happened before for other reasons. And these businesses out there need the current need, the more modern infrastructure. They're not going to be here for forever waiting on that. It was a promise that was made when we started leasing out those areas, and it's a promise we need to keep. Number two, risk of not having this badly needed affordable housing. It's a shame if we weren't able to approve that for what's needed out there right now. And if we can get the teachers in there, great. Even greater and even lower than than the the average affordable housing. Number three risk of not having in fact. Now. I can't even read my writing right now. So. Number three, of having to start all over again with a developer that we don't know. They will face the same costs and the same financing challenges as our developer that we've been working with. For how long has it been now? A couple of years, it seems, and we had a deal and things change. But frankly, I think change for the better in many ways. After all, this developer has proven itself itself time and time again. And now here we are questioning his integrity. I don't understand how we're looking for the the city to make more profit because of delays out of their control. Penalizing the developers for things that are not in his control. Are we really penalizing those businesses out there now that need that infrastructure? Are we really penalizing the people who need affordable housing? Are we really penalizing the entire community who have waited 20 years to have a dilapidated military base developed into the jewel of the bay, which I really believe can happen? And the last thing I would say is from chaos rises opportunity and there's a lot of opportunity in.
Speaker 0: Moving Salisbury and the wrong Curtis.
Speaker 2: Linda Asbury, executive director of the West Alameda Business Association. Mayor Spencer and Council. I'm delighted to be here and on behalf of the board of directors and some of you know them personally, and you've known that they've been invested in this community for a very long time. I'm on behalf of them saying we totally support what's been put before you tonight, the staff report, and we're hoping that you will see it that way, that this is great progress, a little someone sad, a little bump in the road. And I we understand that. But on behalf of our board of directors in West Alameda, we strongly think this should go forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Ron Curtis and Janice Curtis's sitting time to him. So he has up to 6 minutes.
Speaker 5: Madam Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Ron Curtis. I'm a member of the Planning Board. I voted for this project, and during the discussion of the project, one of my main concerns was the fact that the developer was in default. The projections going out created a lot of risk as we went from from phase one to phase two to phase three. At Phase one, I'm pretty sure that everything will be successful. Phase two all the houses are built and benches and essentially most of the cash has been generated for this project. Phase three, these things up in the air now. Staff has done an incredible job working with the developer in terms of developing this plan, which phases the development. It's a good development. It's phased as good as it can be to get done what needs to be done. The thing that's missing is the assurances that the development will be completed. And I heard tonight that you can't bond anything in in in in phase three because there's nothing bond about this whole development is a contract. And you can put up a letter of credit. You can put up a bond. In some amount to assure that it's being done. I could think of nothing worse than the developer taking the money out of the project with all good intention. Going to go to stage three and leaving the city holding the bag. Ergo, the taxpayers holding the bag. You know, it's tough to get up here listening to the support because it is a good project. It's a great project. But there's risk that goes with it. And the city shouldn't be the one holding the bag with all of the risk. The risk should be shared. And it's tough for all of you up there because you have the responsibility to take the action to support this, the taxpayers, and to protect them for something that that doesn't doesn't happen. But whether it's a letter of credit, whether it's it's it's bonding, a portion of the future improvements. It. It can be a determination made between staff and the developer, but provide some sort of protection to the city in some kind of a penalty if the thing isn't completed. That will give to you the protection and security that you need. You're going out a lot of years and a lot of things can happen. And I could think of nothing worse for jobs and for the city to get halfway through a phase and then say, hey, we can't do it because. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. On Andreas Cleaver. Cleaver and then Doug Biggs.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council members and staff. My name's Andreas Cleaver, Secretary Treasurer of the Alameda County Building Trades Council. And on behalf of our 28 affiliated unions, we strongly urge you to support the amendments to the DDA on this project. At first I'd like to just kind of go down a little bit of memory lane here. I mean, we've been involved as building trades on partners, on the development of Alameda Point for quite some time now. And we've gone through a series of developers which I will not bring up. And I think it's important to note with this developer, they are true partner. They came out, we negotiated and worked on a project labor agreement with them in 2015 and since then they haven't wavered from that from those commitments in terms of having good union jobs on this site. In addition to the fact we now have the project labor agreement with the city, thanks to you and we're really upping our recruitment for a city of Alameda residents into the trades and we just a great opportunity for those residents as they mature into journey workers to be working out on the site. As indicated, construction costs have gone up. That's not a reflection of labor rates. Labor rates have kind of stayed up with inflation of that. It's just a very competitive environment. It's a construction boom going on. And, you know, and the development world is a very uncertain world. It's it's a world where market forces can kind of change the direction of project. So that's what's happening. And we have to work to help to try to make this project a reality. I think the wins for the city were mentioned by a lot of the previous speakers and we need to see this project move forward. This amendment is necessary to move that project forward. And finally, I mean, development is a risky and uncertain business, there's no doubt about that. And but if this amendment is not approved today, the only certain we have is this project will die. And it'll be years before we're back here trying to move this forward. So from the building trades, we strongly urge you to support this amendment. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Doug Biggs and then and MC Harrigan.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name's Doug Biggs. I'm the executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative. I want to first talk about the some of the changes that are being proposed. And to let you know that we think it's a vast improvement over what the initial design was. We had concerns initially that were addressed in the DDA about keeping those large warehouses and making that kind of an impermeable barrier between our neighborhood and theirs. The new design with the teacher housing really opened that up and provides a very fluid opportunity for our residents to be able to access the main or the the main commercial area, the very point. So that's a huge improvement. Moving infrastructure into in the phase one initially that was going to be in phase three up in that area. That would make it a lot harder for our development to move forward now because they put housing up there, the infrastructure has to go up there in phase one. That's going to make our job a lot easier. That's why we want this to happen. Why do we need this to happen? Let me just share my last week out at Alameda Point on Friday, we lost water service to Building 92. What does that mean? That means on Saturday, we have 200 people coming out to use the food bank. We don't have restrooms for them. That means the Red Cross that uses the water to make ice to carry out on their mobile blood drives may have to cancel those blood drives. I call the city. The city says, no, we don't handle water out of alameda point. Better check with the contractors. I literally had to drive around to five buildings around that area to ask if anybody had shut off the water. By the time I figured out what it was, it turns out it was a contractor on behalf of the city that was mapping the water lines and it turned a waterline off. Luckily, he came out about 7 p.m.. We turned it back on up until Saturday at noon. We were still dealing with rust in those pipes and the water was coming out of the fast brown that infrastructure at Alameda point. Yesterday, we lost power. All of West Alameda. If you saw the tweet from Alameda Municipal Power, they said that overnight there were 3 to 5 buildings that still didn't have any power. There were 4 to 6. Building 92 was also with power. But guess what? Alameda Power didn't know that because the maps were incorrect. The infrastructure is so bad out there, people don't know where the lines are going. That's the infrastructure we're living with now. That is not Alameda infrastructure. That is not first world infrastructure. And if you decide tonight. Do not move forward. You're taking on the burden of responsibility to say to the businesses out there, the residents out there, we deem that you deserve to live with this kind of third rate infrastructure. We decided it's not important enough to move forward on this. That is a typical week for us nowadays, and it's only going to get worse. Chances are because of that water outage, we've now got damaged pipes. So we're going to have to go back in and work on it. Just going to get worse that we really need to move ahead on this. I understand there's risk, but there are huge risks to the city. If you decide that the people and the residents and the businesses that are out there don't deserve better. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Mekere here again and then Laura Thomas.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor. Council members and staff. My name is and Mike Harrigan. And this evening I am here on behalf of the AUC Board of trustees. As you know, California is one of the lowest per pupil funding states in our country. With that, in our immediate area, Alameda Unified is the lowest funded district in our county. As you can imagine, this makes it very difficult for us to be able to pay our teachers and employees a wage that they deserve. And so one of the most difficult things that we face is recruiting and retaining our employees. The board began investigating a variety of different ways of trying to help do that with without having the ability of being able to do it through a salary. And one of those things was through being able to provide housing for our employees. In a recent study that was done, of which 523 of our employees responded, 45% stated that they did not live in the city of Alameda. Of that, 45%, 80% of those respondents said it had to do with cost that they could not afford to live in the city where they worked. At the last school board meeting, we were our staff presented two options that we had for housing. One was the option that was that is addressed today related to site. The other is the option of going forward on something on the land that we have already in out on the point. What I can tell you is that site which is larger and could possibly provide more housing the cost, although we really couldn't even clarify it, is almost double of what we're looking at. And the reality is there's probably much more that at this point they couldn't even begin to determine what that was. What I can tell you is of the two that were placed forward, every board member enthusiastically and I will highlight enthusiastically directed staff to move forward with the site plan. By doing this, you do two things when you support this site moving forward, which is very important to this community. But on the other hand, you also would be able to give us the ability, the district, the ability to be looking forward to provide that affordable housing for our employees. So on somewhat of a personal note, because of what I stated before or funding has always been so tight, it's not unusual for districts to have to come up with creative solutions. And I can personally say that I was very excited with this creative solution that was brought forward, and we are looking forward to hearing from staff who we do know is working diligently with the developers to give us the final numbers on this. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's now 1030, so we need to have a motion to hear the balance of the agenda. The other agenda items remaining are six C, which is approving a lease with Force 60, the ordinance for a 15 year lease with Teleport Communications and my Referral nine A regarding cannabis businesses.
Speaker 6: So then there was also the.
Speaker 9: Five eight.
Speaker 0: Yes, you're right. Ten A delegation.
Speaker 8: I remember.
Speaker 6: From the Highlander five F.
Speaker 9: Has in Frank.
Speaker 0: OC five F but also I'm sorry, 1010 A the designation of voting delegates for the league.
Speaker 3: So move.
Speaker 0: So is there a second?
Speaker 9: Can I just a question? How many speakers do we have for the remaining items? Eight. And that's all on ten and the referral or I'm sorry, nine. I mean, could we, we cut that to 2 minutes each.
Speaker 6: Or can we say that we won't go past 11 p.m.?
Speaker 0: Well, I'd like.
Speaker 3: To be so.
Speaker 0: Okay. I personally would prefer the 2 minutes each.
Speaker 9: So if.
Speaker 0: Entertaining that I'd be fine with that.
Speaker 1: Moved. Oh, I'd be fine with that.
Speaker 9: Then I'll second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor. I.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: I. How many votes do we need at that point? We need three or four. We need four. So I heard three.
Speaker 6: So.
Speaker 0: But we have a fourth.
Speaker 2: Oh. Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, yeah, Lord, thank you. Thank you. Member Ashcraft. All right. We're going to roll it. So that was Mr. Kerrigan. Next speaker is Laura Thomas and then Karen Bass.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel Laura Thomas with renewed hope housing advocates. I'm actually feel my heart pounding because this is such an important project. I don't even know if I can speak.
Speaker 9: Tell you the truth.
Speaker 2: Renewed hopes of the city and got a 25% requirement for affordable housing in 2001. And then because the measure A, we just couldn't get past to fail development developers and now we finally have multifamily housing and we have a really good developer, a couple of really good developers, and the city's worried about its risk. We don't risk anything. I don't see what the city risks. Nothing. You have put nothing in. You got nothing out. The developer's putting everything in. And the developers willing to do something that's actually quite difficult. It's actually renewed hopes faltered so hard. We asked for 25% affordable housing and it's the right thing to do and they're willing to do it. And what are we doing? Risking. What are we risking? Risking losing the ferry route, risking losing 128, a very low and low income units. That isn't being done anywhere, that number anywhere in the Bay Area. And we're risking losing being a failed city, basically, that can't take care of its people, can't create a public infrastructure, can't get public transportation, can't build housing. That's what we risk by not going ahead. I don't understand. $4 million for a sports complex, really? I'm sorry. I'm kind of angry. I've been working on this a long time on the behalf of the citizens of Alameda, and I can see how much people are coming together around this project. The school part is great, not big because it limits the moderate income housing to the school district because unfortunately that's what it takes to get this project to move forward. But because the school district is now involved and we're all working together, tons of people are working together. Thank you. This better go forward.
Speaker 0: Karen Bass. And she's the last speaker on this item. If you'd like to speak on this item, please submit your slip.
Speaker 3: Hey. Good evening, Mayor. City Council staff. I just want to, first of all, thank the developer for their presentation. I think we all needed to hear from them. And I personally and I listened to the list of everything that they've accomplished. And that's a sign of a developer here to stay. And it's a sign that the developer is committed to this project, especially include the pre-development cost that they've already spent today. So I'm here to support the site amendment, and I think we need to give this. We need to give this developer everything. They need to succeed. Because if they succeed, Almeida succeeds. This changes in development plans happens in development, especially for a development this size and especially for a development with this size and cost. Let's not forget the many phases land use changes, financing changes that Catullus went through before they got it right. And now they are in their final phase. I was I mean, I remember coming to the city council and for and I want to disclose I work for Catalyst. So I learned a lot about real estate development and construction working for Catalist. So I've seen the number of of of changes that a development plan can go through. It's about market and timing and cost. So I encourage you to approve this site. This site, a Second Amendment. And I guess I want to close by saying I'm just really proud that we have a local developer that's managing this this project. So it's it's amazing. And I heard I listened to him talk about his reputation and he has a great reputation. And and I think I don't I think we don't want to forget that what he's accomplished and he lives he lives in this community. He's committed. So I just hope you approve this amendment because I think everything is contingent upon site A and he's this developer is committed I heard that tonight in their presentation.
Speaker 0: Thank you JP Fairey and he is our last speaker.
Speaker 1: Mayor Council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My wife is a teacher here in Alameda. I live in Alameda. My older son moved back to Alameda.
Speaker 5: After college and I run Alameda Point Studios, which is out on the point. And this this deal is not perfect for us, but we want it. Our sewer line collapses. Electricity comes in and out. There's things that this is just going to help with us. We're a community of artists, makers. You know, it's so popular to.
Speaker 1: Call yourself a maker, but that's what we are furniture builders, artists, painters.
Speaker 5: Sculptors, welders. And, you know, it's not this is not going to be perfect for us, but we need it. So we just wanted to put our support behind it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Member.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thank you, everyone, for coming out and speaking. A special appreciation to Jen and all the hard work your team does every day on moving this project forward. Before I go into my remarks, I just do want to point out that we do sit up here and we do have an obligation to ask the tough questions. I mean, they may be uncomfortable for some people, but, you know, we do have an obligation to find out the answers. And we do have an obligation ultimately to our entire community. And I mean, to me, the risk is is in the first question that I asked and the last question that I asked, is the developer going to come through with the financing if we make these these amendments? Because if we do make them and and they don't, then the whole thing falls apart and then we have nothing. So, I mean, those are the questions I wanted to hear answers to. And I wanted to learn more about whether or not we were going to be able to do this. So, I mean, I'm going to analogize with a little story and you'll probably, you know, get the gist of it really quickly. It's like, you know, a person searching for a relationship the first time they meet somebody, you know, everything's happy, they get excited, and then they find out a little bit into it that, you know, they're not compatible. And then they move on to the next one. So they wait a few more years and they meet another person and they think, wow, fireworks, you know, this is super compatible. And then they find out super early that they're completely incompatible because the other person is just, well, I'm not going to say that. So then so then they go on a few more years later and they're a little older and then maybe they're a little more desperate and they think they'll never find partner again. And then all of a sudden, the knight on the shiny white horse rides in and, you know, seems perfect. And then they're willing to overlook, you know, an occasional flaw. And there's things that they just, you know, kind of think, okay, I can accept that, you know? But, you know, they never really pay attention. Then a couple of years in, then the bloom is off the rose and they notice some of the faults. And then they have to decide, you know, am I going to keep moving forward with this person or am I going to to not? So I think that's where we are today that, you know, there was a lot of expectations. There was a lot of the community's hopes. I think there may have been some things that the community may have, you know, overlooked that, you know, maybe we should have looked at as red flags two years ago. But, you know, now they're here and now we have to face them. So, you know, we're faced with the choice, you know, like a person in a relationship, you know, do we go through our counseling and find out a way to make it work or do we, you know, walk away? So, I mean, I think we've invested a lot in this project, and I am still cognizant of the fact that I am concerned that this is going to to close, but it's not going to close if we don't vote for it. So I can tell you that I can tell you right. Right now that's the case. So, you know, just to kind of recap, we've heard a lot of a lot of the the positives and the negatives. And there are certain things certain things about this project that really, really appealed to me and I think are are positives for the community the ferry terminal payment getting that done now there's there's things wheels in motion in Sacramento with a bridge toll increase that are really going to make our ferry system boom. So I think we need to be putting it putting ourselves in a position to take advantage of that. I mean, the accelerated building of housing, one of the the comments that people talked about that we need we need this housing and now phase two is going to be accelerated by four years. So that's four fewer years. I mean, we've waited almost two for this, but now there's four fewer years we'll have to wait for for the phase two project, the teacher housing. And I think that's an amazing coup to to put that together. I mean, there are financing mechanisms that are available for teacher housing that don't exist for the other housing. And I think we do owe something to our teachers and give them something back for everything that they've done, you know, to educate our children and make this community great. So, I mean, this is kind of a no brainer, but, you know, no housing on that contaminated property. I mean, that was one of the things, you know, maybe we should have raised a red flag about that earlier. But but now that that has been moved to a different area and Doug brought up this point, you know, the more continuity and the fluid ness of the residential neighborhood now that will have an outside A and the phase two and then Main Street contiguous with each other. And then also we'll have the commercial on the South Side on contiguous with the enterprise zone. So I think, you know, overall, I think that's a better a better plan and no loss of commercial space. I mean, that's important to me. I really hope that when we get to the point where we're ready to go to phase three, that we actually stick to the plan and build commercial there. And no, but I'll just leave that at that. And, you know, last but not least, you know, the commitment to labor is critical to me. And, you know, all the jobs that are going to be created and, you know, the wealth that's going to be grown from our working folks. So, you know, there are certain things that I I'm not particularly keen about. I mean, I think, you know, the sports complex is an important aspect of this. I mean, I worry about the risk of the $4 million and the overall risk. But again. You know, the risk for me is, is the developer going to make the deadline and secure the financing? And they both stood up there and assured us that they would. So I'm willing to like the person that is in the marriage counseling and is asked to take a chance. I mean, I'm willing to take a chance and trust them at their word. And I will be voting to move this forward.
Speaker 0: Member matter, S.E..
Speaker 5: I look at this and I think there's a very good layout of the potential. Outcomes of this change of this amendment and staff did a really good job in boiling it down in the in the presentation. I'm willing to support this for three reasons. One is the first reason is it commits a substantial amount of infrastructure between at the low end, $43 million immediately. And then with the if for some reason phase two doesn't occur, we still have the infrastructure money from the bonding for the ferry. And that's really important because without without sewer, gas, electricity and water, nobody lives there and the businesses deteriorate. Number two is that we have a potential to get affordable housing that is at the highest percentage. And I've been pushing to up the percentage of inclusionary housing. This delivers it and it's a small amount in the big scheme of things, but it is a significant amount in Alameda and I think we need to do it. The third is that I don't have. You know, I can I'm willing to to gamble on on not getting the $4 million for the or the sports complex because it's offset by the value that's added to our property with infrastructure that is not just in phase one, but. Feeds the north end of the enterprise zone in the south end of the main street. And without if we don't go forward on this, we don't have that. So we lose that value. And then lastly. We have an example where and I'm not going to say I don't have faith that phase three is going to happen. So but I will say that I'm skeptical because I saw it happen with Alameda landing. And. I will say that I'm not going to be willing to give more houses because that last phase of commercial doesn't pencil not there. So I think I would like to have staff have a way to if phase three doesn't happen, if we don't move forward with that, then there is no right left for the developer that the city takes that and folds it into its commercial development, which is happening around count the number of lease options to buy that we've had outside of site A starting with. The areas by the by the married fleet with there's like five or six of them that go up and down up to building nine and 91. So I, I think we can do it ourselves, but I don't want to be tied to the developer if they can't do phase three and you know, the show's over. No houses. No, you know, we're not going to give you any anything more to answer. Some concerns that people gave me about. Well, what happens if the. The run up on market rate housing continues to escalate and there's a windfall well, in the development and disposition agreement. There's city participation in. Profit over internal rate of return, starting at 18% where we get 10%. And one of the things not for tonight, but I'd like us to think about that windfall is going to come from high cost of housing. So the city's participatory fund should go back into subsidizing housing. So you know that that's what I'm looking at. And I really want staff to plan for plan for the failure of phase three. I know the developer doesn't want to hear that. I, I've seen what they've done out it at at the Harbor Bay Business Park and I think it's possible. But we need to plan for the failure of it so that we can complete the commercial development ourselves.
Speaker 0: Member.
Speaker 6: Ashcroft Thank you, Mayor. I might not have used the term plan for failure, but I. Well, really.
Speaker 5: Black and white. This business is not emotional.
Speaker 6: Are there other than that phrase, though, I'd like to say that I very much agree with Councilmember Materazzi. One of the things that occurs to me in the years that I've spent on the City Council is, well, my three qualifications for being a council member. Tough skinned sense of humor and a backbone. The backbone comes into play. They all do tonight, though, because when we're dealing with high stakes issues and this is very high stakes, we need to be resilient. We need to be nimble. We need to play the hand were dealt. It is fine to ask tough questions, but that doesn't mean that we need to attack the people giving the answers. This is the market. And I want to first just back up and say, Jan, Art and your team have been outstanding. That includes the city attorney's office because there's been a lot of legal ramifications to all of this and the changes and going through everything. And I very much appreciate the way you wrote the staff report and you brought out to us what you consider the risks. We we can't just look at, you know, all the good and not look at what the potential downside risk is. But you wrote an excellent staff report. It was all laid out. Yes, we're merging three phases into two, but we will still have 800 housing units, well-needed housing units, both market rate and affordable. 200 of those will be affordable. 600,000 square feet of commercial still there. The reason I feel confident on the commercial is I've seen the kind of leases we're getting in Alameda Point. A few of us were out at a business called Astra last week. I think it was pretty amazing. High tech folks, they are, you know, former Googlers and various things, but they're they're doing some amazing things and they're expanding. And how did they find out about it? Well, they know somebody else who's listening. I want made a point. We are getting on the on the map, but backing up to what I was going to say, the calculus that I'm applying here is what will we gain if we vote as a council to move forward with this amendment to the DDA? What will we lose? What are the priorities of this city? My priorities are and by the way, I just want to call out Michael McDonough from the Chamber of Commerce. Your remarks tonight were some of the best I've heard from you or any speaker in just laying out who are we penalizing if we say no to this ? Are we penalizing the developer? And again, our former mayor, Marie Gillmor, used to say this a lot, and I think I said it when I was planning board president once upon a time, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As much as I would like to wave my magic wand, I'm still looking for it. But you have to you have to stay abreast of what are the changes. This isn't just unique to Alameda. It is the market. There's also such a thing as timing. If we let this window of opportunity close, the opportunity might not come back or not for a long time. If we think that the panacea is to scrap everything that's been done and look for the new white knight that's going to take a couple of years just to be back at square one again. And I should probably throw in that. I've been married for 35 years, so I've got a lot of confidence in, you know, knowing that you can't necessarily have a crystal ball, but you do look a lot at a lot of the attributes and and qualities. And and I do have confidence in this development team. But to the points that Michael McDonough was raising and Doug Biggs to from Alameda Point Collaborative, who are we penalizing the folks out there, the formerly homeless families that we had a lot of lip service to serving? Are we going to make them live with the water and the electricity going out? Not to mention the businesses who have been trying to run a business out there for all these years since the the Navy moved out. And what are our priorities as a city? Mine is to see that infrastructure that is World War Two, vintage and older replaced. We want healthy. I don't want to be Flint, Michigan, with contaminated water because of the quality of the pipes. We owe that to our residents and to our businesses and our visitors. And I want to see housing. That's extremely important to me. I will say I although it was the majority of the council who voted, I'm disappointed the way the adu. Ordinance went down, but maybe we'll have another chance to tweak that. But right now we have a very exciting project in front of us. I'm excited about Parks and open space, the sports complex, love sports. My kids played square. It's going through school. It is not the make or break deal for me. My my priorities are I don't want people sleeping in parks. I want parks, but I don't want people sleeping there because they lack housing and the partnership with USD. I never want to be in the position where I pit one group in need of housing against another. Come on, we. We need housing. We need more of it. We'll build everything we can build it. Alan made a point and it won't be enough. But what happens if we don't build it at all? We're in that much more of a deficit. I love the idea of the collaboration with the school district. I am always a little leery about things I don't have control over, but I'm hoping that there are some really good reasons, not least of which is the cost to keep the parties moving forward on this. And so I, I just want to again, thank everyone who has worked so hard on this, because we are closer now than we've ever been to developing Alameda Point. I know this is the third developer. It's really not fair to analogize them to a assuncao, for instance, because they're so different in so many ways. But did things turn out the way we thought they would? Almost three years ago when we entered this? No, but look around. This country has changed. Markets are changing. So the time to act is now. My vote is yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: We need a motion to go past 11.
Speaker 9: So second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor I motion unanimously. Thank you, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 4: You know, I've heard a lot we talked a lot about the risks, and there are great risks for sure. But the guarantee, the only guarantee that I see is that if we vote against this, we don't get all of the benefits that were also discussed. And I think that for me, this is as much about our ability to control our own fate as the city. We know we need the infrastructure we're talking about, you know, at best or the lowest estimate being $43 million just for sewage, water, things like that, plus another ten for the ferry. So at best, $53 million, you know, in terms of the lowest cost. But it's probably going to be we know it's going to be much more than that. Not to mention the benefit to our Main Street neighborhood project, the Enterprise District. And I think that when we talk about the guarantee, the guarantee about going back to square one means that we don't know what the future holds because the construction costs are going to continue to rise. So as we defer this project. What we see is that we end up getting less and less bang for our buck in terms of the affordable housing, the ability to get all of these infrastructure projects completed, the ability to work on our transportation projects, the in transit projects that we have coming up. And so that that's really what is motivating me when it comes to this project. I do also hold concerns relative to the feasibility of phase three and the sports complex payment. But I, I trust that we can find a way to work with staff to ensure that there isn't some sort of bait and switch or something like that that happens. That would then delay other projects that are contingent relative to the housing numbers or, you know, impact our ability to meet our commercial goals that are set for out there. Because I think there's a lot of commercial and I and I that said, I also think there's a lot of different things happening within the commercial industry that very well could come to fruition depending on what happens in that space. So I'm prepared to vote in support of this project.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I appreciate the comments of my fellow council members. Some of the speakers of the charge back when the Navy gave us that property and I want to read it from the Naval Air Station. Alameda point info was in fact to replace 14,000 jobs. It is there's there's 14 and 25 units of housing that the Navy has allocated for this property to offset the jobs. But the focus is, in fact, to replenish jobs, phases one and two. If without the guarantees of phase three occurring, this is essentially a housing project, not a job project. So I will not be able to support this project. Every time the developer when I ask and I and I appreciate Councilmember Otis question specifically in regards to the financing, the financing should in fact be for all three phases. This is not a private developers land. This is the people's land. This is the land of Alameda. And for me to have a developer stand up in front of us and say, I do not have I cannot I will not guarantee the entire project. I think it's irresponsible for us to proceed. We need jobs. We know that if we wanted to give this land to a developer for a housing project, that was not a problem. Building housing has not been the problem. It is, in fact, trying to get the jobs replenished. And that is in fact, the charge. Thank you. So I would like to finish my comments. So in regards to the analogy, I have a different analogy. The analogy I'd like to use is if you go to sell your house and you make a deal with someone to purchase it at whatever the prices, and then they don't fall through, they drop the ball. And you don't blame yourself because you are still trying to sell your house. It is, in fact, on the buyer that it satisfy the conditions of the deal. And when we have someone who is in default, that is very serious. So this is the people's property. The people are, in fact, titled entitled to that 4 million to finish that project. Well, we do need the commercial property. We made a deal with a developer who is now in default and is telling us straight up that there are no guarantees to get it built. So, no, I don't think it's appropriate to proceed then. And if you were selling your house and you had someone show up and say, you know what, I'm not going to pay you what I had promised. No guarantees. I don't think you would close the deal either. And that's essentially what we are being asked to do. To close the deal where we are being told straight up, no guarantees and an and in fact, we had someone from our planning board who I do respect his opinion that there could in fact be a letter of credit or some way of bond in the future of the improvements. And the developer is not offering to do either of those things, nor assess any penalty if the job if the project all three phases are not completed. And I appreciate that we have people that do need jobs to build projects. We also have people that need jobs to go to every single day, not just build a project. So that being said, we have.
Speaker 5: I'll make a motion.
Speaker 6: I'll second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor.
Speaker 3: And I.
Speaker 0: Oppose motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Take a quick.
Speaker 3: Break.
Speaker 0: And.
Speaker 2: Is okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. We will take a short break until 10 minutes after 11.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very much. Before we needed to finish up this last item. Attorney Andrew, go.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 0: Panic is going to help us out. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the city council. Members of the public. My name is Enrico Pinnick, assistant city attorney. Council members, you just took a vote on item six. Be dealing with the site a DDA amendment. I just want to get your clarification that you were voting on the Second Amendment to the DDA as amended. That amendment was put on your chairs just before the meeting commenced and was made available to the public at the clerk's table. Ms.. Art mentioned that in her verbal remarks, but when you made the motion, it was a little bit quick. And I just want to clarify for the record that you were voting on the Second Amendment as amended.
Speaker 5: Affirmative.
Speaker 0: So we need a motion.
Speaker 1: No, your your affirmation is is fine.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you for voting against that part. Thank you.
Speaker 1: But thank you. I apologize for the for the clarification.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 6: Now we're doing clarifications. And no, this doesn't involve you. Well, you and I, I was reminded by the city attorney's staff that I am mathematically challenged because the new ordinance only requires three affirmative votes, not four. I had four votes on my mind, so we did. We did. That was the second reading.
Speaker 0: And so if I could keep going.
Speaker 6: No, I just want to clarify. Otherwise, I don't want to be misleading.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 2: Six C Introduction of ordinance approving a lease with Friends of Alameda Animal Shelter.
Speaker 8: And this is just a extension of the previous approval by council. This is first reading and second reading will happen in the next meeting.
Speaker 0: Okay, so do we have a motion?
Speaker 9: So I'm up.
Speaker 6: Second all.
Speaker 0: Those in favor I I curious unanimously. No one oppose. Right. All right, let's move on to 60.
Speaker 2: The introduction of ordinance approving a 15 year lease with three.
Speaker 0: Five year extension options.
Speaker 2: With Teleport Communications of America LLC for conduit space for one containing fiber from.
Speaker 0: The intersection of Grand Street and Fortman.
Speaker 2: Way across the Oakland.
Speaker 0: Estuary to Coast.
Speaker 2: Guard Island requires four affirmative votes.
Speaker 0: We have a motion.
Speaker 3: Or.
Speaker 9: A presentation.
Speaker 5: Can you give a little background for people?
Speaker 8: Yes, this is actually we have a Bob or Veda is here from AMP. But the short story is that this is a conduit that goes from the island to Coast Guard island and it needs to be approved by council.
Speaker 0: Did you want to add anything since you're here? Waiting for 11 p.m.?
Speaker 6: I would like to.
Speaker 1: I'm here to answer questions.
Speaker 0: You're here to answer questions? Anyone have any questions?
Speaker 5: This is essential for Coast Guard activity, so I may move it.
Speaker 0: There's a motion. Second, all those in favor. All right, I want the motion carries unanimously. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Rivera.
Speaker 0: So now.
Speaker 9: With the lights turned back up. I'm sorry I'm late. Sorry. Thank you.
Speaker 0: You just asked to have the lights turned back up. All right. So next item seven.
Speaker 2: Actually, now we were taken in by the five f.
Speaker 0: I s f as in Frank. There were a few questions.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members, my name is Sharon Malcolm is a city engineer for Al Media, and I'm here to respond to the question raised by Vice Mayor Vella regarding the funding for the contract that we are recommending to be approved. Historically, Gulf funds have been used as a small component in the funding mechanism for this type of project. For this type of contract, there are the trees within the the golf course itself. Ah, I understand now they're being basically managed by way by an outside entity called Greenway which they, they happen to hire their own contractors to do their work. However, these funds could be used. That is, the golf fund to maintain the trees that are adjacent to the golf course itself. That said, if the city council would like to remove this funds from the the golf fund, that is from the contract and either we have to has it replaced by general funds or alternatively, we can reduce the contingency on the contract, reducing it from 10% to some lower number. So after the contract or through.
Speaker 4: So it's for the vice mayor. All right. So it's for the trees that are adjacent to the golf course. And do we have the amount that we're talking about spending?
Speaker 1: It's about $20,000. My understanding.
Speaker 0: Any other questions from counsel? Do we have a motion?
Speaker 5: Remember I move that we adopt the contract with the clarification that approximately $20,000 is allocated from the Gulf Fund to maintain the trees adjacent to the golf course.
Speaker 6: Our second.
Speaker 0: Any comments? All those in favor. I. I.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: A motion carried unanimously. Thank you. Now, item seven, City Manager Communications.
Speaker 8: I would just like to thank the Coast Guard for their really good support and the Coast Guard festival. After the parade, the 4th of July parade yesterday. And the second thing is, Building 91 that was is owned by Joe Ernst and is in line for becoming organic malt and cultivation has successfully gone through escrow and they've exercised their agreement to purchase that building, and they purchased it for 3 million, which starts the city's contribution for improving the infrastructure on Alameda Point. So that happened on Tuesday. On Monday, actually.
Speaker 1: And a mayor?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 5: Can I ask the city manager to give us an update as our representative on the public utility board on local solar and recs, because that's coming up on the 17th, I believe it.
Speaker 8: Is coming up. And the RECs is.
Speaker 6: Do you want to spell out for people who don't? Yes. No. Renewable energy.
Speaker 8: Renewable energy credits. And what it does is, one, because we are actually very green, one of the greenest utilities in the state, we are able to sell our green credits. And to companies that are not as green as the AMP, the Alameda Municipal Power, we have used that money and to do additional green efforts, including we just won an award for doing. Bulb replacement throughout the island to lower everyone's energy costs. We are about ready to do another round of selling the rec dollars, the renewable energy credits, and it's going to come in around $9 million, eight or $9 million. And so the question is, how is the board going to direct staff to spend those new credits? And that's coming up in front of the pub, the Public Utility Board. And what I said at the last meeting is I just wanted to remind the other members of the board about the. So the city's previous goals for Community Solar and to an AMP staff is also looking at Mount Trash more as a site for community solar at that location. And so if that feasibility study comes back and says that's a positive solution for a community solar. I express this council's previous position to support that effort going forward.
Speaker 5: So the feasibility study is happening.
Speaker 8: The feasibility study is underway, and on.
Speaker 5: The 17th, they're going to allocate, not allocate the funds they'll.
Speaker 8: Give direct.
Speaker 5: To the funds. Okay. Yes, thank you.
Speaker 0: Can I just ask what.
Speaker 4: The timeline is for that? Well, I know that they're assuming they approve it.
Speaker 8: The timeline for the study.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 8: I do not know, actually, what the consultant's expectation is. Okay. But I can provide that to the council. Okay.
Speaker 2: That would be.
Speaker 5: Helpful. Of agendas.
Speaker 8: Fine. Yes.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Do we have any oral communications? Not agenda. Agenda item eight? None. Thank you. Counsel Referrals nine A.
Speaker 2: Considered directing staff to proposed regulations to authorize convenient and safe cannabis businesses in Alameda.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So I brought this referral. I know. And I do want to thank member Odie for bringing his referral back in, I believe November and at that time I had made the motion to move forward with that. And here we are in June and July. Now, I'm sorry. Here we are in July. And I had brought my referral in the beginning of June to see if there is any way to give further direction to staff to try to help expedite this issue. And and I think that, if at all possible, if we can do that, to expedite it, to expedite having cannabis businesses and specifically dispensaries in town, I think it's very important that we give that further direction, if possible. And and why? Because unfortunately, at this point, many of us either are or know people with serious health issues that unfortunately, they're not able to purchase here in town. They have to go into Oakland or San Francisco or other cities to be able to talk to someone in person, to get information and then to be able to purchase. And I myself am a cancer survivor. I have done very, very serious chemo. That was ten years ago. At that time, my journey was it was interesting. It was pre where we are today as a society, which means it was back when you could not get a card, you could not do it and do it legally . And so back then, when I did my chemo, I actually would go to PTA meetings and I'd show up here all and speak on behalf of PTA. I was PTA council president and I would go to meetings and people knew that I was going through breast cancer and they would stop me after a meeting and say, Trish , if you need anything, I will help you. And that that was very hard. So fast forward today, I'm doing I've had to deal with side effects from the very aggressive chemo. So I'm back going to the cancer center here at cancer center every six months for infusions to try to strengthen my bones, which is very painful. And at this point, people like me can, in fact, legally access cannabis to help us with the symptoms. And to me, time is critical, which is why I'm actually brought this referral to see if there are the three votes on this council to try to give better direction to staff of working, of coming up with a proposed ordinance to have dispensaries in town. So sooner rather than later, because in fact, if you are one of these people and honestly, God bless you if you're not, but those of us that have to live in the real world, I have had these experiences where I could be on my sofa. So the first time I did these treatments that I just started that I will be doing every six months. I was right before Thanksgiving, the day before Thanksgiving, and that worked out really well because Thanksgiving, that Friday, that Saturday and that Sunday, I did not have any obligations as mayor, which worked out really well because I could not have done anything. I was, in fact. Stuck in my home for those four days. And that is what the face of anyone dealing with serious health issues, especially side effects from either going through chemo or side effects from chemo. And if you've got been that person or you know those people, the journey is tough. So now I'm doing these treatments every six months and it's these side effects, thank goodness, are not as bad. But the last time I had two weeks of nausea. So I think I'm so I'm hoping that I'll have the support of counsel to try to narrow the direction and get better direction of actually come back with an ordinance proposed ordinance to start having dispensaries here in town. So that's why I brought the referral. And I'm we do have speakers so with at this point I would entertain calling the speakers if you if you all are good with that and we're ready.
Speaker 9: I mean can we have staff kind of update because you didn't outline the previous referral and the timeline? I mean, is it possible for staff to update us on where we are on presenting? While making their presentation to council.
Speaker 3: Just.
Speaker 8: Sure. So the council, as the mayor said, had a referral that was broad on cannabis. It was when we went to the February work session, it was identified as a medium priority, partly because of the timing with what the state was developing, the regulations. And so if we get too far ahead, we might have to change, um, depending on the regulations of the state. We have been going to a lot of the informational information about all of this. We actually had an internal workshop for staff on all of the different, the six different categories of primary activities and support activities for cannabis. We want to have that consultant come in and share that same information with this council, hopefully the first meeting of September. That's where it when it's tentatively scheduled right now. And the council will be asked at that time, what activities do we want to regulate and give more information about policy planning and an update on where the state is. They did just get approval for their regulations and the governor signed it. So we are now in perfect timing for taking this forward as quickly as possible, and we still have until January 2018. We also are looking at taxing cannabis companies and that would go on the ballot on November 2018. And we are doing a quality of life survey that should be coming out in a couple of weeks. And that has one question on it about how do you feel as a community about the different aspects of cannabis distribution, cultivation and manufacturing?
Speaker 0: So that goes to why I want to know if we have the three votes at this point to ask to give direction to staff to come back with a proposed ordinance. I do not think it is. I am concerned if we're going to be waiting until January, that's another six months. And I just think that that is too long to wait. If, in fact, there's a way to expedite it and I appreciate that staff is proposing workshops and surveys, but my my referral goes to having dispensary's sooner rather than later. And I am very concerned. We just spent over a year on that. And I appreciate, you know, I was going to bring up the animal shelter. We spent over a year on that issue. I don't think it's appropriate that we spend over a year on this issue, and that's the timeline we are on at this point. So I would like to go ahead and call the speakers at this time. Thank you. Melody Montgomery and and then Sharon Golden.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: I'm Melody.
Speaker 2: Thank you for letting me speak. I want to speak to you as a patient and a perspective business owner. I've been a patient since 1996 when when the California law first went into effect. I don't really want to share with you all why.
Speaker 3: But I have been a patient. I abide by those laws. Just recently, I've started my own business. That's a topical business for people that have pain. You don't smoke it. You put it on where it hurts and it takes the pain away, which has.
Speaker 2: Very little effect to.
Speaker 3: The people around you.
Speaker 2: I'd like you to go ahead and and approve.
Speaker 3: And go forward with what we're going for. It's very important that we have access here on the island. It's very important that not only do patients have access.
Speaker 2: But that prospective businesses can do business here. I don't want to take my business.
Speaker 3: And have to go to Oakland. I don't want to go.
Speaker 2: Anywhere but the place where I live. So it would be lovely.
Speaker 3: If we could do that. It provides not only businesses and jobs for for us as business owners, but jobs for people that we're going to hire and.
Speaker 2: It will eventually pay, get some tax money going.
Speaker 3: So I would really like to see it go forward. And to you, Trish, I'd like to talk to you about CBD for your for your bones.
Speaker 0: And how you.
Speaker 3: Think you.
Speaker 9: Point of information. We're on the 2 minutes, right, Madam Clerk? Okay.
Speaker 2: Sharon Golden and they are sharing golden age. Sisi, thank you for letting me speak tonight. I really want to thank everybody for kind of starting this whole process last year without him taking the step forward, I'm not sure that Alameda would have ever been ready to have this dialog. But I also want to be thinking her answer this evening for her referral, ICC fully stands behind her referral. There's a couple of reasons that are a little bit different than Brody's. We really we really are here to kind of make sure that our local residents, your constituents are given an opportunity to open a business or have access to their medicines on the island. And being that staff is coming back nearly ten months after his referral. And in addition, I heard from staff that there's going to be an additional like a SurveyMonkey of types that are has not yet made it to other constituents, other Alameda. I'm kind of concerned that without this referral, we're not going to have a streamlined process. And this can be this can really drag out way beyond the January 2008 season. And I would like to also point out that in January 2018.
Speaker 4: We're going to need a very.
Speaker 2: Clear direction as cannabis business owners, as patients or as adult users. And I would like for my city to kind of make that.
Speaker 8: Clear to us.
Speaker 2: In some form of a proposal to propose rules or something that we can kind of go off of, even if we're not able to fully permit the applicants by that time.
Speaker 3: Hmm.
Speaker 2: Furthermore, I the city. Oh, I'm sorry. My phone just went out. Okay, so a while. Alameda has that back. Cannabis has undoubtedly grown into a huge business. And what I've seen from. Thank you. I do that.
Speaker 0: Rich Moskowitz and then Amber Lopez.
Speaker 5: Mayor Spencer, members, staff, city people. I want to thank you all for being here and allowing us to meaning to go along tonight. I didn't want to speak about my own history with cannabis.
Speaker 1: Or medicine or any.
Speaker 5: Of those things. I want to speak to three issues that are pertinent to all of us in this room as meetings.
Speaker 1: And I think.
Speaker 5: That cannabis addresses all of these. So first, I'd like to urge all of you to support the mayor's motion to move forward tonight. And the three issues I want to bring up where cannabis can be an assistance to the island is if we choose as citizens, as our leaders to allow cannabis businesses to the island, they provide three benefits direct, certainly the sales tax issues, certainly the excise tax issues. That's a no brainer. But it also employer and it also involves employing people on the island. That also involves cutting down traffic. So as we move forward and discuss for many hours tonight additional dwellings and the issues that we've all are very well aware of with the rental markets, I'd like to put this in a new light and simply say that if you feel that it's proper to move forward for the community, then there are supplemental benefits separate from the obvious ones. And very specifically Tricia's video.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, Mayor Spence's video.
Speaker 5: Spoke specifically about our meetings, trusting our meetings and also not liking to leave the island. We can all acknowledge both these two facts. Cannabis is growing from the.
Speaker 1: Community, not from outside the community, by residents for residents.
Speaker 5: Provides that confidence to people who are new to this world.
Speaker 1: Also assures them as other alameda and.
Speaker 5: We don't want to impact their life on alameda. We are aware that for many years this has been a very different conversation than it is today. And as such, we want to bring the people who are new to this world to see us as good, competent members of the community. We don't want their children exposed. We have the same concerns as them and such. And thank you very much. I urge you to vote for the mayor's proposal.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Amber Lopez.
Speaker 2: Hello. Thank you for letting me talk. I would like her proposal to.
Speaker 8: Go through and be executed because I believe Alameda should have safe access to cannabis on site and that having cannabis businesses of all types can bring a lot of business here and give a lot of people jobs as well, because there are a lot of talented people here that are in the field that work outside of Alameda to make a living. But doing what they love and if they can do it here in town, it cut down commute time.
Speaker 2: It would be a stronger community and I think.
Speaker 8: It'd be a great idea.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Adele. Of course. I'm sorry. It's a bell, baby. Thank you. All right, a bell. And then Mark. First one.
Speaker 1: So much. Appreciate it. Oh, my name is Abel. Have two. Georges and I am here as a proud member of the class of 1998. We'll see what middle school and the class of 2002 in Snell High School, Jets Proud alum. And you know, many years ago, in 2002, I actually sat right there as a student school board representative, and here I am. Fast forward, still a handsome young man supporting my good friends who are doing amazing work with an entrepreneurial spirit and true Olympians who are, you know, really advocating at this point to seize and a very , very important opportunity. You know, we have known throughout our time that Alameda is a jewel. But oftentimes, you know, we've seen things come and go and the opportunities may have been passing or may have been inaccessible. Here we have a very unique opportunity right in front of us, and we're sitting in the driver's seat. Mr. Rodriguez, one of my mentors at Encino High School. Some of you guys may know, used to say to me, in action is not an option. I had no idea what he was talking about. But now I've seen through experience and now I'm looking at each and every one of you realizing that at this present moment, inaction is definitely not an option. We should definitely move forward, support the new crop of entrepreneurs that are locally based, that are homegrown and that are loving members of this community and classmates. So, you know, if we want to do this the right way, it has to be done the Alameda way. And in order for it to be done, the Alameda way has to be done by our comedians. So stand here in strong support of the mayor's referral and his strong support of good entrepreneurs and friends who are trying to do some amazing work in Alameda. Thank you.
Speaker 11: My personal heart. And then I have a speaker set that has an address.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. If you could hold your applause, then I have a speaker slip with an address on bass and sideway without a name. So it's Mark, and then it's the person that didn't put their name on here.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I want to especially thank Councilmember Odie and.
Speaker 5: Mayor Spencer, both of whom came to the Alameda Island cannabis community, separate meetings to to address us, talk about where the city is and in relation to cannabis, and also come with open ears and open mind and really listen to our our concerns and answer our questions. Those are great interactions. And we really appreciate the way that you're you're working to support us and represent us. I want to speak on two aspects of cannabis businesses moving forward. I'm a prospective business owner myself, along with my partner Nick Portales, another long term Alameda resident. Our one aspect which has been getting some play tonight is the idea of residents preferences or requirements. Many of you probably recall 2008, we had a brush with an outside entity that came in to run a dispensary here in town. It didn't go well. They weren't committed to the community. They weren't ingrained in the fabric of the community. And I think when we start talking about cannabis businesses where there's a public safety concern, particularly those businesses like dispensaries and delivery, that are going to be more ingrained with the business community and dealing with.
Speaker 1: Residents on a day to day basis.
Speaker 5: I think having that local control and that commitment to the community coming from this business really is essential for it to be done right. So I'd like you to strongly support a residency, either requirement or preferences. Secondly, I'd also, as you move forward, I'd like you to also be open to the idea of onsite consumption. Currently, cannabis.
Speaker 1: Regulations are really tracking that of tobacco, so it's very, very difficult for people to medicate.
Speaker 5: In certain places. If they live in apartment buildings, for instance, multi-family.
Speaker 1: Dwellings they may not be able to consume at home.
Speaker 5: And by having onsite consumption.
Speaker 1: Allowed at dispensaries or related entities, I think it'll also help to keep.
Speaker 5: Consumption out of off the streets, off the beaches and so forth.
Speaker 0: Thank you. No need to feel that you're at the base inside, base inside. And then Ryan.
Speaker 1: Hi. I'm Tim Anderson. I live on the island, as do my parents. Alameda is full of cannabis businesses and cannabis consumption. And so that experiment is being done. And you can look at your crime statistics and see the what happens. ALAMY does legal fully legal cannabis businesses are in Berkeley and Oakland and they are thrilled to have them. And you can go talk to Berkeley and Oakland and see how thrilled they would be to have even more of Almeida's cannabis businesses. So that experiment is being done. You can go to Berkeley and Oakland and see how happy they are to have all of the cannabis business that they can get in general. I guess what keeps coming up in Alameda is how can you stay on the island? And just looking at the bay census, only 10% of Alameda is like bike walk or work at home. Everyone else drives to work. So anything that can let people do those, that 10% of the working on meetings who have found a way to do that. Anything that can help them do more of that and more people do that way is good for Alameda. It's good for people involved, and it's good for the planet. And so I support cannabis.
Speaker 11: Proposal Ryan was about.
Speaker 0: Ryan.
Speaker 6: It applies to we.
Speaker 0: Have one.
Speaker 2: Speaker, okay.
Speaker 0: And I have one more speakership after this. If there's anyone else that wants to speak, please submit your set. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Hello. Thank you, everybody. Thanks for staying so late and hearing us out. I was born here in Alameda. I was raised here in Alameda. I went to school elementary through high school. Even in college. I'm a product of Alameda. I'm not going anywhere and my family's not going anywhere. But I'm here today because this month marks the fifth year of losing my auntie to spinal fluid cancer. So I seen we took care of her, me and my mom. We took care of her in her last 18 months of her life. And from the beginning, I recommended to her, to my uncle and her and my my cousins that, hey, let's you know, she's she's she's not looking too good. Let's let's let's help her out. You know, let's give her some some medicine that can ease her, you know. And they were just totally against it. You know, the doctors were saying, don't do it and they didn't do it. It wasn't until she was completely bedridden and she couldn't get up, she she wasn't even able t to eat food anymore without it coming back up because the chemo was so strong. It wasn't until that point that she was able to you know, her family's able to finally say, okay, let's let's let her try an edible. And from that point on, from the last six months, she was taking edibles and she was able to at least enjoy the remainder of her life, you know, eating and laughing and, you know, spending time with her family and not just sitting there suffering. And, you know, I just I ask all you just to, you know, find some compassion in your heart, not just for, you know, patients, but also, you know, somebody who may they might be healthy today, but then tomorrow something may happen. And to not have access to this or like me or Spence who said, you know, I have to go to Oakland when you're when you're bedridden, I mean, how how fair is that? You know, I mean, we're we're it's 2018. People can get or 2017 and people can access this anywhere else but Alameda and even San Leandro. And that's I mean, you're saying we're behind San Leandro, so that's all I have to say. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: And I think hold your applause. I appreciate Andrew Huntoon. And if we have any other speakers slips. Andrew Huntoon. They submit your slips.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 7: You're not going to believe this. I actually walked out of this meeting, went around the corner, saw a movie, got back here, and.
Speaker 1: Now, I believe that.
Speaker 7: This is my third attempt. And I just want to say, as a lifelong Armenian and a graduate of high school, a participant in the Vietnam War, and a person who visualized a different method, when I got back and hooked up with my friends who went to the Haight Ashbury and thought that things were a little different. I never imagined that marijuana would have a medical benefit. But I've come to find that to be true. I think of my father in law who basically starved to death because he couldn't generate an appetite. There's no way in hell he would smoke a joint. There was such a stigma associated with it, and I think it's time to wipe the slate clean. And the government should start accommodating the people and servicing the people, all the people. There should be no differences between any of the people in the world and even any of their beliefs. People got to learn to respect one another and accommodate one another. This is something God given we need and it's something that we should all be able to partake in once we achieve adulthood. Thank you. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 0: Juliette Lockwood and then Dorothea McPhatter. And then those are the last speaker steps I have.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor Spencer and Council. Appreciate you all for this evening's extra time. I am an owner of a cafe here in West Alameda. I am a long time supporter of cannabis from the standpoint of not ever wanting to be on pharmaceutical. I'm a natural food supporter. I'm also a preventative health care worker. I had worked in the cancer environment in Louisiana and saw quite a lot of changes in my outlook on life. So I moved back to California to open a business again. I had already had a business here. I was an artist and a decorator, but I'm still here. I've returned to Alameda and this is the place I wanted to have a business. So I am a believer that cannabis could be lifted for a particular population of adults who are suffering from anxiety, depression, OCD, PTSD. There's a range of things that we all go through here in our lives. We would like to lift the ban here in Alameda as small businesses. And I'd like to actually look forward to the future of the VA hospital being a wonderful research center. And I think that it'd be, you know, a pretty good balancing act for us to look into how we can prepare for that. So I think it'd be foolish for us to wait any longer. I'm back and I'm not going anywhere. I want to see this island mature, and I know change is hard in a place like this, but I'm here to be supportive of the things that we can possibly do to make it safe. For children, adults, veterans, end of life care. So thank you for your time. And wellness is really the real reason for this. So I appreciate all the considerations people we all know that may need this for wellness. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Dorothy McPhatter. And then Terry Golden.
Speaker 2: Good evening. And mostly I'd like to really appreciate your time, each and every one of you giving us this opportunity to speak. Personally, I've been dealing with cannabis for over 50 years for the simple.
Speaker 3: Fact that I've been in major car accidents. I've been.
Speaker 2: I've been dragged. I was hit three times at a gas station, flew through the air, landed on my head on concrete, and was rolled over. At the time I was given a type of pharmaceutical, but my Los Angeles L.A. Rams.
Speaker 3: African doctor told me, smoke a joint. That's what he told me, because when I walked.
Speaker 2: I made 25 to 30 different motions to put one foot down.
Speaker 3: To step and walk in front of the other.
Speaker 2: I was told I'd never speak again. I'd never walk again. A lot of things that I haven't done. But I'm in the process because cannabis has helped heal me. I come from a natural path background and I can say I always try. Pharmaceutical pollen has been getting me for the last few years. I have just looked horrible and I have found that using the steroids put me in a state of fury.
Speaker 3: Where I wanted to hurt people. And the main thing was I didn't want to hurt myself.
Speaker 2: So I would smoke a joint or I would CBD.
Speaker 3: I've been using it.
Speaker 10: Across the.
Speaker 3: Board from edibles.
Speaker 2: Just trying to see what works for me. And like.
Speaker 10: Mellody said.
Speaker 2: Mayor, as far as the CBD is, I know a lot of athletes who utilize it. I'm doing Nike and I'm dealing with bone health and so many other things. So I'll be 64 at the end of the month and I put some color in my hair today and then I just look forward to having those 3 to 4 votes. If you all have that in your hearts to give us that, because going forward, I think that cannabis would give us the kind of financial stability where we can get that $400,000 or million dollars and get the sports center out on the island.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Terry. Terry Golding.
Speaker 0: Terry Golden, and she's our last speaker. My name is Terry.
Speaker 2: Golden and I am a constituent, but my official name is Theresa Gold and I go by Terry Golden. I wasn't going to speak, but decided that I would come up and speak. I personally have never used cannabis in any form and. I'm a construction worker. Haven't even been home yet from work.
Speaker 0: So we're randomly drug test tested.
Speaker 2: But I will say my husband is a. Sorry. Pancreatic cancer survivor. He's one of the 6%. He's got. Two and a half years. Cancer free right now. We? Like likely. I have an amazing daughter who got involved in this industry. And when she first got involved, I were I don't know how I felt, but, you know, when life hits you with it, you know how you feel. She set up a regime regimen for us and what my husband was taking was CB A and THC A and we attribute this to his. Consistent recovery that.
Speaker 0: He's in right now.
Speaker 2: So I, I want something to move forward because we've heard from from people who suffer and. I'm excited to see what you guys are going to do tonight. And thank you for listening. And sorry I cried.
Speaker 0: So I want to thank everyone that came out tonight. I actually don't think I can add more than what the speakers already said, and I'm just going to go there. The council would like to speak.
Speaker 9: And Brody and I can speak a little bit, so I guess. I want to go back to the schedule. So I mean, hypothetically, we approve this. First time we can have a come back is September.
Speaker 8: September 2nd.
Speaker 9: So that's the plan. Second. Well, seventh.
Speaker 8: The first Tuesday of September.
Speaker 9: That's the. The fifth. Right. I mean, can we get a commitment that. You know, we'll have the analysis. On that day or. Because that's the mean. That's the first available meeting anyway, right. Right, because.
Speaker 8: The package is out tomorrow at noon. And and we're close. We're dark during August.
Speaker 9: So then what would be the steps, assuming we we decided we want some type of ordinance or, you know, to get rid of our whatever we've repealed or I'm sorry, whatever we banned.
Speaker 8: So I what we were envisioning for September is a series of questions for the council that will help draft the ordinance. You want it retail dispensaries separate from cultivation and what zoning districts it would be allowed and things of that nature and setbacks from schools, etc. like we have for liquor stores and cigaret sales.
Speaker 9: So then we would expect that the first available. Again, I'm just trying to plan out the logistics because I think with this referral, whether it passes or not, the fact that it's been on the agenda three, three times may have actually succeeded in its intent, which is to get the ball rolling and get get the hearing and get the ordinances drafted. So I guess then, you know, we would have a first reading on the 3rd of October and the second reading on the 17th, or is that kind of where we're looking?
Speaker 8: I mean I mean, it depends on the direction of the Council on September 5th. But if the council says we want to focus just on dispensaries and as outlined in the referral, we could put that ahead of looking at cultivations. We could put that ahead of taxation questions. The taxation question is probably the longest time period because we can only put that on a ballot where that council is running for reelection, which is November 2018. Where we've started that process. We've already started talking to consultants about that. That's why there's more testing at now or the language to put on the ballot in November. We will have those results presented to the Council in September that will have that information for the council to make a decision as well.
Speaker 9: And I guess my preference would be that we, you know, we we we keep going and moving on this process and that we have, you know, the presentation where we have community input and and discuss the possible ordinance as soon as possible. And then whatever the council decides and we get those ordinances drafted. Right. And I guess, I mean, right now my personal thought would be not to restrict, you know, potential ordinances to one category, you know, to kind of evaluate the entire entire option, I mean, the entire list. So, you know, I don't know that that needs emotion. I mean, just a couple other, you know, items.
Speaker 3: I mean, the.
Speaker 8: The exists the referral previously includes all the options. This one is more specific to dispensaries.
Speaker 9: And it did also include a request for some type of ownership. So I would hope that that would be part of the analysis that comes back. I mean, what we could do to incentivize or not incentivize local ownership, what's legal, you know, what's not, because I don't know what the answers are and we're not going to find that out today. But when we had that presentation, you know, some analysis of what what our options are like, maybe if we do I mean, hypothetically, if we do have a dispensary application process like San Leandro went through, which I think was supposedly, you know, apolitical and blind, you know, do we have points for this? We have a point system. Do we have a requirement? Just I don't know what the options are.
Speaker 8: So that's one of the options that we'll be talking about in September 5th and we've spoken about internally is one option is to say we will allow two permits for dispensaries on the island and then you have a criteria process and you have a third party selected. So it is not political. One of the criteria is could be local ownership cetera, but that's a question for the council to direct staff. And what is that number, you know, and do we want to start slowly or do we want to open it up to, you know. Any options.
Speaker 9: And I guess all those questions have to be answered. So hopefully staff when they come back will.
Speaker 8: Have a list of questions that we can then fill in the blank for future regulation.
Speaker 9: And I also like to see some analysis on the onsite consumption issue because we do have a smoke free ordinance in Alameda tax apartment users and such. So.
Speaker 8: And that was new to me tonight. That isn't on our list right now. So we'll.
Speaker 9: Add it. I know it wasn't part of the referral, but it was something that came up. So and then of course, the revenue, you know, that that's kind of one of the more important things to me. I mean, every everybody's position here and their their testimony I think was was helpful. But I mean, the revenue was something I think we can't lose sight of.
Speaker 8: And there's two revenue sources besides sales tax, but one is a doing a just like we do. Cost recovery. So we would identify what the cost is for having it in the city and then charge that to the business. It becomes a business license tax that recoups our additional costs for having this business in the city. And then there's also the tax that gets put on the ballot. Okay.
Speaker 9: Those are kind of my comments. I mean, a lot of that the rest doesn't need to be said. I mean, if you've knocked on doors precinct locking on Friday night, you know, there's pervasive use of cannabis in Alameda and with with recreational you know. It's it's the law of the state now. So I think we need to put ourselves in a position where we're, you know, we could benefit both the city and and our residents from it. So.
Speaker 11: But these. Hold your applause.
Speaker 0: I want to circle back. Please hold your applause. MEMBER Audie, could you clarify, would you be agreeable to focusing first on dispensaries as opposed to this is a long list. And, you know, my concern is that if we're going to have all these issues addressed, that it would, in fact, take more time. So my my request is, in fact, that we focus on the dispensaries and the on site consumption. I'm fine with trying to work that in, but this list that staff is proposing, we know in reality it is going to be more than one meeting. So if we could break it down two parts, that's why I brought the referral. If you would be willing to entertain, at least address that part first.
Speaker 3: I mean.
Speaker 9: I'll just give my $0.02. I mean, my colleagues can chime in as well. I mean, I think there's some low hanging fruit here in the manufacturing side, in the lab side and the testing side. You know, that the who knows it might not require an ordinance. It could be, you know, something we do with planning and something we do with zoning. So I'd like to not shut the door, you know, on one thing over the other. I do think personally, I mean, this is. My opinion, it's not my position and I think dispensaries will probably be the most controversial of the topics we talk about. So. That's just my opinion. I mean, I'm not saying that's my position.
Speaker 4: Vice mayor tried a few questions. I know that most of the speakers referenced medical use, but I think the elephant in the room is the recreational side, which obviously was just signed by the governor last week. And so I just want clarification whether the staff presentation in September is going to only include the medical or if it's also going to include adult recreational use.
Speaker 8: We were envisioning both.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then. And then my next question is relative to, you know, it looks like we're possibly considering some sort of dispersion zoning, that sort of thing. One of my concerns is that we tend to put everything out on Alameda Point, so everything in the future tends to always be on Alameda point. And I think that, you know, when we look at the dispersion aspect of it, are we looking at how that's going to impact whether something can be located on, you know, in Harbor Bay or Bay Farm, if something could be located on the East End. I mean, I. Are we going to get to see maps and proposals for that in terms of the, you know, for instance, the conditional zoning regulation included in the referral of 600 feet of public and private schools.
Speaker 0: Not within not within.
Speaker 4: Not within six feet. But so what? So what does that what does that actually look like? Are we going to have a are we going to have that sort of mapping and that sort of thing to review? Like, because one of the for instance, I mean, people were referencing San Leandro, San Leandro hasn't there isn't a dispensary in San Leandro right now. Everything's been held up. So they issued permits and it's been delayed for 24 months. They did get they they got one through early on. Then they they've been sitting around. So my other concern is, you know, and part of the issue has just been locating an actual place to put, you know, the the next one. They issued two additional permits, one. One's been held up for one type of reason. The other has been held up because there's nothing there. So are we going to actually get to see the options in terms of where something's potentially possible? Because. I mean, hypothetically, we could approve something. And then it turns out that you can't put it anywhere.
Speaker 8: Yes. But I don't think we'll be able to without getting direction from the counsel of what the limitations are. I have a map that pre predicts what your direction is going to be. We can turn that around. But there are two commercial areas. Webster and Park are probably where we'd look first, and then you have to look at available buildings and right size and all sorts of different things like that. But I, I think the siting of the sighting of the locations is going to be the most difficult.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then my other question has to do with if you if we lift the ban, what is the impact of that on, you know, Councilmember Otis referral or any of the other work that's being done relative to.
Speaker 8: I mean, so lifts the ban that is in place right now.
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 8: Well, we have medical marijuana ordinance. We are having the consultants look at that to see how. How that can match this new state regulations going forward, and that will be part of the discussion in September.
Speaker 4: And then are we also looking at part of what was passed at the state level, required labor peace agreement? You know, essentially labor peace relative to businesses of certain sizes, but this that local cities can regulate further than that. Is that going to be included in the presentation?
Speaker 8: That could be council direction when we bring it back. We were looking at the state regulations.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Nebraska.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mayor Spencer. I appreciate everyone who came out and shared their views. When I make a decision, I like it to be an informed decision, and I appreciate it. By the way, first and foremost, of course, medical marijuana is essential. But I also understand that Harborside and I've visited a couple of times will deliver. So it's not that we're cutting off our, you know, patients in Alameda who need medical marijuana, but. What we heard from tonight is people have been very much in the industry who are users. We represent the entire city. I'm glad to hear that the survey that the city will be doing will have some questions because we do need to take the pulse of the community so that this is a big decision. But we also need to get our regulations in place so that it's local control, not the state that's telling us how to do what we're doing. The and there's some other things I'd like to have considered. And by the way, I feel like we've got the council referral already in place. Council mean staff is coming back to us. The first meeting in September. I don't know that we can tell them work faster. So, you know, this is good. But I have also read that there have been increased law enforcement costs, especially in driving under the influence, because there isn't currently a way to measure driving under the influence of cannabis. But we do see an increase and I've talked to the police chief about this, have seen an increase in driving under the influence, accidents and things. So I'd like to factor in, you know, what what costs will that will that bring?
Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Disposition and Development Agreement between Alameda Point Partners, LLC and the City of Alameda for Site A at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 858)