Recommendation to: 1) Direct Staff to Conduct a Four-Week Request For Qualifications (RFQ) Solicitation Process for the Development of the West Midway Project; 2) Approve Debbie Potter, Community Development Director; Michelle Giles, Base Reuse Manager; Lisa N. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and Eric Levitt, City Manager, as Designated Real Property Negotiators for the West Midway Project; 3) Approve the Finding that the West Midway Project is not subject to the Surplus Lands Act as Amended; and 4) Direct Staff to Include a $350,000 Appropriation for the RESHAP Project Backbone Infrastructure Design in the Mid-Year Budget. (Community Development 819099)
Project is not subject to the Surplus Land Act as amended and directs staff to include a $350,000 appropriation for the reshaped Project Backbone Infrastructure designed in the mid-year budget. Good evening. Good to see you voted indeed. Good meeting. Now good meeting, too, right? But we hope so. Well, we'll see. Council members, mayor, I am Debbie Potter, the city's development director. And I'm before you this evening seeking authorization to issue an RFQ for the West Midway Project. And just to kind of reintroduce everyone to the West Midway Project, it is an approximate 33 acre site located out at Alameda Point. It is referred to or we look at it as two parcels. The first parcel, which is outlined in blue, we call the reshaped parcel. The second parcel outlined in red is the market rate parcel. Currently, that almost 33 acre property has the homeless, that Alameda point homeless accommodation, which is, among other things, 200 units of housing for formerly homeless people. And the proposal for the West Midway Development is to consolidate the Alameda Point homeless accommodation onto the 9.7 acre reshaped parcel and then free up the balance of the almost 23 acres for a market rate developer who would come in and develop up to 291 residential units, mixed use other commercial uses, and provide the backbone infrastructure that is required for the ultimate redevelopment of the reshaped parcel. So that is the West Midway Project. So quick little overview and then I'm going to go. To the presentation. Okay. I just have to say. I realize the map would be helpful after I put the PowerPoint together. So I'm. Not about. Got it right. Now let's go to at. This mask is tricky, okay, because you can't get the out. But it's a nice photo. Now they're going to see the second you got it. Sorry about that. So the city's the city council's vision. In the city's vision for the West Midway Project started when the City Council approved a disposition and development agreement with the collaborating partners and the collaborative, where the collaborating partners consist of Alameda Point, Collaborative Operation Dignity and Building Futures with Women and Children and the Collaborating Partners. Nonprofit development partner Mid-Penn that DDA was approved in July of 2018. So shortly after the DDA was approved, the city issued an RFQ to identify and select a developer for the balance of the West Midway property. We received seven proposals in September of 2018. In February of last year, the Council selected two finalist developers. And then, unfortunately, through the balance of 2019, both finalists developers withdrew from consideration as the developer for the West Midway property at around the same time that the second developer withdrew from consideration. The governor signed a 1486, which was an amendment to the State Surplus Lands Act, and that amendment that HB 1486 went into effect on January 1st of this year. And the new Surplus Lands Act, as amended, requires staff to analyze each of our property dispositions to make a determination about whether or not the proposed disposition is either . The new law does not apply to it. The disposition is exempt from the law or the law applies to the proposed property disposition. Staff has determined that the Surplus Lands Act as amended, does not apply to this proposed disposition because the city had entered into a legally binding agreement prior to September 30th of 2019. And we anticipate that the property disposition will be completed by December 31st of 2022. At the same time that the developer withdrew from consideration, the second finalist developer, the collaborating partners, started talking among themselves and looking at potential ways to develop the reshaped property essentially on their own without a market rate master developer to partner with them , as was contemplated and is contemplated in the DDA and the collaborating partners, they looked at potential grants that were available and other strategies, and ultimately the collaborating partners concluded that the best option was to restart the developer's solicitation process that they really needed that that partner, as was envisioned in the development of the West Midway property. And they communicated their their request to staff that we recommend a restart of the development solicitation, the developer solicitation process at the same time that the collaborating partners were looking at their ability to go it alone. Staff also began to look at ways we might recommend to the City Council that the City Council could play a role , or the city could play a role in being a catalyst to the Reshape project, because staff recognizes that the ability to launch the Reshape project is of high importance to the city to be able to produce the 267 new housing units for formerly homeless people. And so staff looked at three different options that are discussed in more detail in the staff report. But we looked at the idea of demolishing the commissary, which is a big building out on the West Midway footprint. We looked at some secondary site preparation work that could be undertaken once that commissary was demolished. And then we looked at the possibility of funding the design. Phase one backbone infrastructure and staff has recommended and is recommending that the Council appropriate $350,000 to fund the design of the Phase one backbone infrastructure. And we're recommending that because that that activity has the longest lead time. It's it could be up to one and a half years to design that backbone infrastructure. And that is because of East Bay Mud's pace of work. And we are thinking if we could start on that Phase one backbone infrastructure and get that underway on a parallel track with the. Solicitation for the market rate developer in the negotiations. Then we will be that much further along when we're ready to get going with the the master developer. So that that is our recommendation. And then just to reiterate, when the city clerk just read a few minutes ago, we do have four recommendations that we are seeking from the council this evening. The first is to direct staff to conduct a four week RFQ solicitation process to designate approved real estate negotiators for the project, to make a finding that the Surplus Lands Act does not apply to the the proposed disposition and as I said, direct staff to include a $350,000 appropriation for the backbone infrastructure design in the mid-year budget. And with that, I am concluding my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions, certainly. And Madame, quick to have any public speakers on the side. We have two. Okay. So before we go to our public speakers, do we have any clarifying questions of Miss Potter? Let's start with Councilmember de SAC. Several questions first. What thought has Steph given to having whatever developer is interested in the market rate portion funding the $350,000? Well, if the city council does not appropriate the funds this evening as part of the midyear, then that would be an obligation of the market rate developer to undertake that design work. And that work then would not start until the developer is selected in the end and then a DDA are negotiated. So the idea is to jump start or be the catalyst. There is also an opportunity to structure this as as a loan that would be repaid by the developer once the developer is selected. Um, that that that is an option. Another question. Um, I can't quite recall, but what were the plans for the commissary building in the various documents that we've dealt with over the past years? It needs to be demolished. Mm hmm. Okay. And I have a the city manager would like to say a few words. Mr. Levitt. If I could just add to the first question to answer the first question. That was the concept is that we could put from the general fund as a loan. Then when you're doing the development agreement with whoever the developer is that's chosen that you could always choose at that time whether or not you would forgive the loan or whether you would apply that to the development agreement at that time. You answered one of my questions with that response. Thank you. Councilmember Desai Anything further from you? Councilor Brody. Thank you. That was one of my questions, too. So can we just quickly go through the timeline? So just hypothetically, we passed this today, you know, in the RF, RF queue goes out tomorrow. It will go out no later than Monday. So Monday, that's the ninth. So then they have. Four. More weeks on our first week in April. And then how long before we get some type of there's I assume there's gonna be a staff recommendation, right. Right. What we anticipate is receiving proposals. Depending on the number of proposals that we receive, we will either short list or interview all of the, um, the developers who respond depending on the number. And then we would come back to council with a recommendation. And then do we have an estimate on when that would be? I think we are anticipating that we could be back to council with a recommendation at the first meeting in June. June. So. Okay. I'm not sure what day that is, but it's the first meeting just that's about 90 days, right? Yes. Okay. So and then hypothetically, just bear with me. If we did decide or decided not to declare the project exempt from the Surplus Lands Act, I mean, what is the timeline on that one? Oh, it is. I mean, so we would have to decide tomorrow. So under the Surplus Lands Act, if you are if you are a property disposition that is required to meet the the notice requirements and then potentially the negotiating requirements, you have to publish a notice that is out for 60 days. And then if interest is expressed, you have a minimum 90 day negotiation period. If someone expresses interest rate, that's correct. So if 60 days goes by and nobody expressed interest, then we've complied with the Surplus Lands Act. That's correct. Okay. So, I mean, it seems to me that, you know, whether we do one or the other, we're still going to get something in front of the council right about the same time. The only risk of. Not I don't know that I would make the assumption that we wouldn't receive any interest. I believe OECD's list as it stands today is over 400 interested parties. And so I don't I don't know that we would assume that it would be 60 days and no expression of interest. I mean, has anyone been knocking on our door to build 100% affordable at this point or so? We're in clarifying questions of the staff report. Yeah, that's. Okay. Well. As I would say that nonprofit housing organizations have not been afforded this automatic opportunity in the past. And so it's expanded a new opportunity forum for organizations. And then and Mr. said, you can stop the questioning when you feel appropriate. But so if, say, we did declare that it was exempt and then somebody disagreed with that, you know what? What happens then? I mean, who has standing to file some type of action? This is our city attorney even, said Mr. Shen. Yes. So if the a disagreement can come from a number of places. So for instance, if you proceed on this project that essentially any moment any party could come out and indicate to you that this property is subject to the Surplus Lands Act and ask that you comply. That includes the Attorney General. It includes private interested parties like third party housing developers. It includes HPD. And so it's difficult to predict at what precise moment, because as soon as the city proceeds down to take the exemption, it is at least theoretically possible that someone would take that position, as Ms.. Potter indicated, that given that we have an exemption that staff has felt pretty comfortable relying on and because that there is not a significant number of affordable actually is the other way around because this project is developing a significant number of affordable housing, it is relatively less likely, not impossible that affordable housing to offer would nonetheless come in challenge because we are already developing a ton of affordable housing on this project. And so the the universe of potential challengers is state agencies and then affordable housing developers. And local agencies. So for example, the school district in theory, could or the parks district. All right. Local agencies having jurisdiction could. In theory, though, I believe we have heard no such challenge thus far. And then is there a deadline like at what point will that challenge be moot or a statute expire? It will be for quite some time because your development process is long. You're not signing any deals for quite some time. You're currently just going out for RFP, which technically doesn't even trigger the Surplus Lands Act. So it will be quite some time before a statute is triggered. I guess I was trying to understand at what point in this process will we know that if we did an exemption, that we're not at risk of having it challenged? I think it becomes less risky once we commence negotiations. And so and and and conclude the negotiations the council votes in 90 days passes, but a lot could happen. And this law is so new, it's difficult to determine exactly when no challenge could be filed. But because this is so early and and again, to emphasize the RFP process is exempt from the Surplus Lands Act. So you're you're taking an action tonight that that doesn't necessarily implicate the Surplus Lands Act. Thank you. Okay. Anything further and further clarify questions, if I. We're not quite. Yeah. So if we move forward with an RFQ tonight and we're going to be back in June, can you talk to me about what is the process for staff selection? What is the criteria you're is being used? And will staff be coming back with a recommendation or just. You know, a list of potential people for the council, too. So we staff anticipate that we would evaluate proposals, that we get back the, you know, consistent with the way we evaluate development proposals generally. We typically have a rubric that we use that looks at, you know, the experience of the team, what the very high level description of the projects that's being proposed, the ability for the team to finance the project, any experience on prior military basis, affordable housing development. So we have rubric and I imagine that we will probably hew pretty closely to the evaluation criteria we looked at the first time. Around with that rubric be included in the RFQ so people know what, what is what, what they should be speaking to. The RFQ typically talks about what your talks about, what you are required to submit by way of your experience, your financing, that kind of thing. And it's noted that that you will be evaluated, I believe, the points that are evaluated, but I don't think the rubric per se is include the. Points for each thing is. I think. So we will double check. I think that would be good. Okay. And then it's our intention as staff to come back with a recommendation. Yes. Based on our evaluation process. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Anything further, Councilmember de SAC. Yes. On the RFQ criteria, does staff contemplate tonight or some other time getting input from the city council as to some of the qualifications different Council members might have want to see in prospective respondents stuff? So if if the council recalls the first time we went through the RFQ process, we had a subcommittee that council members Odie and Datadog were part of, and that subcommittee developed some subsequent questions, and those are the responses to those questions. Didn't see the light of day the first time around because the development teams withdrew, but we took some of those questions that had already been formulated and put them into this revised and updated RFQ. So some of the questions that the subcommittee had developed, we've added to the RFQ and are asking for those responses upfront to those questions. Can you give us a flavor as to two or three of those questions for the public? And I believe. That because you've forgotten. So one of that one of the questions that the subcommittee was interested in learning more about was the sort of kind of the social justice and social enterprise aspects of the developers experience and what the developer was proposing that that it might want to do to better integrate or ensure proper and full integration of the reshaped parcel with the market rate parcel. So that's a concept that we captured in the RFQ this time around. Okay. Anything further before we go to our public speakers? Okay. That's ever public speakers. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Potter. Abby, Pat Lurie and Doug Biggs. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members Abby Lurie with. Mid-Penn Housing Corporation. And we're honored to be partnering with Alameda Point Collaborative Building Futures with women and Children in Operation Dignity to make reshape a reality. I think everybody knows that we're in a time of unprecedented housing crisis in the Bay Area, and there's an unprecedented amount of funding available at the state level right now to to for affordable housing and to address the homelessness crisis. And so we're really poised and ready to leverage these resources and bring them to Alameda so that we can realize the vision for high quality service, enriched, stable housing for the individuals and families who have experienced homelessness. But to do this, we need the new infrastructure and we need the new community that will come along with that. And this, as Seth mentioned, we've explored a lot of different ways to try to make this work. And, you know, this is this seems like the way that will get us there the fastest. I know there's been some setbacks, and we're we're hopeful that we can work together with staff to expedite the RFP process and are looking forward to their decision moving forward as quickly as possible. And, you know. I'll just have it again, the. Importance of the infrastructure. We you know, we're thinking, I know a little bit short term of just we need the the backbone infrastructure to support the new housing and and hope that that's taken into account in terms of the financial capacity, the phasing, how a market rate developer is going to be able to do that because it's it's complicated. There's a lot to do out there, as you all know. So thank you very much. Thank you. And our next speaker is Ted Biggs. Mr. Biggs. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name's Doug Biggs. I'm the executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative. We're here tonight to speak in support of the staff recommendations on moving forward. We've been at this since 2008, so another four weeks is okay with us. Another year is not we. We do need to keep our foot on the gas pedal. As Abby pointed out, you know, we're at the highest crisis we've ever been, but there's also funding opportunities coming down the road that we don't want to miss. We would look to see the RFP strengthened a little bit with both some of the scoring criteria clearly called out so that people know what they're they're being assessed on. And some additional questions on the capability to do the job. You know, probing questions around how they propose to do phasing, maybe some additional financial. We're not, quite frankly, really interested in seeing a glossy, you know, vision of what they want to create out there. We want to see how they're going to get their shovels in the ground and make the infrastructure work. So we'd like to focus on that. We would ask that the collaborative partners be allowed to, once the applications in, to review them and provide opinions to staff on, you know, aspects of how we think they would work well with with our project and our design, we clearly. Want to leave the final decision. To the staff, as it should be for for making recommendations. We also strongly support the allocation of 350,000 to jumpstart the project. We believe it will provide reassurance to potential applicants that the city is serious about making this happen. And we think putting the money in now to do some of the infrastructure planning will benefit us and benefit us in the long term as far. As being able to move forward. Regarding the Surplus Lands Act, I mean we have a lot of partners that are in other jurisdictions that are dealing with the same issue. This one clearly to us doesn't seem to apply with that. And the we believe the exemption is is totally appropriate. We would be concerned if you did go forward. Even though you don't need to, that at the end of the 60, 90 days, whatever, we still don't have a market rate developer that can build infrastructure, and that's what we need out there. So we would encourage you to adopt the staff recommendations and move forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bass. And that's all our public speakers. Thank you. Okay. So now we go to council discussion. Who wants to start? I'm vice mayor. That's why I met your council member. Avella didn't have any questions. I'll call the speaker. Thank you. Do you want to cede your time to. Are you even ready to speak yet? Maybe later. Catch your breath. Okay. So I did scroll through here. There doesn't seem to be any criteria in the RFQ, so I'm going to say I am supportive of moving forward with this RFQ. I will share that. I'm a little frustrated that we lost our last developer in September. I feel like if the recommendation was to move forward with a revamped but very similar RFQ, that we probably could have done that in October of last year. And we are sitting here losing fact. We've lost five months, and I'd like to see movement on this as fast as possible. I think since last January, we've made very clear that this is a very important project and getting out there and supporting reshape is very important. That said, I know that we ask a lot of our staff and I want to acknowledge that as well. But I really want to signal that I think housing has been for this council, if not the number one or one of the top two issues for the council. And and this is one of the opportunities where we have where the city has the opportunity to actually help move that forward. I would like also to I support that I support all four of the staff recommendations, including the funding to move forward. But I'd like to see a phase two plan for how the city can help move this forward. Outside of the funding, some of the planning around the backbone infrastructure, the $350,000, I think that's a good start, but I don't want to get caught flat footed if we go into negotiations with yet another developer and they drop out. I want to I want to know what it would at least take. Give us the opportunity to know what it was going to take for the city to move forward and meet what I would say our 20 year promises on the Reshape project out there. Yeah. Beyond that, I'm ready to vote to move forward. Thank you. Who wants to go next? Okay. Okay. Councilmember de. SAC. Well, thank you. It would have been great if Alameda Point Partners was able to move forward with this project, but unfortunately, they dropped out as had another interested party. So here we are and I think we need to move forward. And I the thing that I see in this project as a unique opportunity to not just build, uh, market rate housing, which is obviously going to be a critical part of that. This whole project is critical because that's what's going to help pay for the infrastructure, particularly for the, uh, the Alameda Point Community. Alameda Point Collaborative part of the project. But, but I think when we go about trying to find the right developer to build the market rate portion, you know, I just don't want to have another developer whose vision is your typical, uh, kind of, you know, affluent type of housing that we've done that already with Bayport. And quite frankly, we've done that already with other parts of Alameda landing when it comes to the residential. That's why when Councilmember Odie and I were sitting at us as a subcommittee on the previous go around, that's why one of the things that I was really interested in looking at for when developers came forward with developers who had some kind of open mindedness to working with looking at the project through a social justice lens. I myself am not an expert in social justice, so. So I won't pretend to know that. But I do believe that it is an important lens, not just because, you know, it's good in and of itself, but because it will make the market component, I believe, work with the Alameda Point Collaborative component because they're right next to each other. So as people build, you know, a new community, whether it's the residential part of the new community, or if there's going to be a jobs oriented component to the new community out there that we're bringing in developers who have kind of this open minded view of things, you know, who are willing to work with, you know, people who are who have proven themselves in social justice work, whether it's the Green Lighting Institute or whether it's Insite Community Center for Community Economic Development, or whether it's Angela Blackwell's Oregon Organization. So so I appreciate staff, including that aspect in this upcoming RFQ, because hopefully that will make it richer in terms of who comes to us. And they will clearly understand what our expectations are. We we don't want to redo Bayport when it comes to the market rate site. We want someone who has a more broader view of things. Thank you. Councilmember Desai, Councilor Brody. Sure. Thank you. I don't really have too much more to add on the points that my colleagues had mentioned. It's already too late, so we don't need to beat that that horse anymore. I'm concerned about the Surplus Lands Act. I mean, I. I see more of a downside to saying there's an exemption that may later get overruled than actually complying with the law. And, you know, following through the process that I don't think they can I think they can be done in parallel. But I would be in the minority there. I'd like to see us do the math on infrastructure design as structured in such some type of loan, whether it's a loan from the base reuse fund or whether it's something we expect the developer to repay. And I'd even like us to go, you know, one step forward and demolish the commissary if if with the same type of financial arrangement. If that's something that council's interesting because I think I heard that the site prep actually is going to happen after the commissary. Right. So I don't know if we have to make that decision today. I would I would agree with that. Right. So, I mean, that's kind of where I am. I just like to hopefully we'll we'll get a good staff recommendation because I think last time it was kind of left up to us. So we depend on on your expertize and analysis, and I look forward to that hearing. Councilmember Vela So apologies for having to step out of the meeting. I have wear a number of different hats and one of them is being a mom and my baby is not well tonight, so hopefully I won't have to step out again. But I was listening to the Q&A and the presentation. Um, and I, uh, a couple of things. One, I am concerned about the State's Surplus Lands Act and the just in general what this could potentially do if there's some sort of legal challenge which which I think could happen. And I it would have been nice had we known ahead of time that we could have gotten legislative clarity through like a legislative journal question, that sort of thing. But obviously, that time has passed. I still think this might be something where we should still attempt to get legislative clean up on this one item, even if we're moving forward as staff proposes with the exemption. I think getting some sort of legislative clarity, even if it's after the fact, would be helpful. So I hope that we're still pursuing that, even though we're moving forward on this, which I've been told we're looking at legislative clarity. And so I take staff at their word. The other, the other recommendations in terms of the, uh, the demo of the commissary, I'm fine moving forward with that. After the site preparation, I'd like to see the site preparation done. I agree with Councilmember Ody that it should come out of, I would hope, base reuse. I would hope that it's a loan or something that we can negotiate. Those terms can be left up to staff. And I'm fine with the RFQ. Thank you, Councilmember Vela. So I am also anxious to see this project move forward. We cannot overstate the need to address our housing crisis in our city and the Bay Area throughout our state. The reason I'm not as concerned about the Surplus Lands Act is that on page two of the staff report, report is the very impressive statistic that the Collective West Midway Project would include 558 units, of which 48% are affordable to very low and low income households. That's a huge percentage. I mean, certainly there are places in the state that are doing 100% affordable. But I just again, I still looking for that crystal ball, but I don't see the state stepping in to disrupt something like that. In fact, whenever I've talked about what we're doing at Alameda Point and usually the statistic is 25% affordable and that in itself is pretty impressive. But the other things that do concern me is, as the vice mayor and others have mentioned, we've lost a lot of time. And I feel that time is of the essence and probably even more so going forward. I think it would be hard to escape the fact that we're in the middle of some very uncertain times with this corona virus pandemic, which has had a huge impact on the stock market. That impacts as a city. You know, our investments are held in securities. And and I think, you know, anyone in the construction industry is going to look at what that means to their portfolio, the cost of supplies wherever they get their supplies from. And so I do think we need to move with all deliberate speed. And while I appreciate the proposals that the staff brought forward, I am wondering what council would think of being maybe even a little more aggressive. So we know that I'm just pulling up an email I sent to Ms.. Potter earlier today that we know that we have had interest from two other developers who were not selected. That is right here. Okay. So my question to staff was, what about instead of going back for a full irf p that we actually asked the asked for updated r f Qs because this is our queue rather than our fee. But whichever it is from the folks who have expressed interest up till now that that we considered could tell us Brookfield and then CEI was a part of Jamestown, I believe, and came with an unsolicited offer. And I, I just wonder, I mean, we could certainly go back out to the market, do we? And I think, Councilmember ODA, you actually were getting at this question. Have we seen a lot of interest expressed from others? I mean, I think someone who comes to the city just on their own volition without a solicitation is worth at least considering based on the criteria. So I would like to hear my colleagues thoughts about that and maybe just moving forward, assuming the parties are still interested. But I think it even says in the report that they are. And I also know that I heard Mr. Biggs from Alameda Point Collaborative mentioned that they would like to somehow be involved in the selection process . I'm assuming, Miss Potter, that are two interviews take place and you have an interview panel. And will that include who would that include? Come on, back up. Thank you. So we welcome the collaborating partners participation and when we on our first go around, they have an opportunity to meet with the four finalists and provide staff with their their feedback and their impressions, which went into kind of the calculus as we evaluated the proposals. Thank you. Councilmember Vela. Could could we here? I was just asking the city attorney for some clarity on whether or not the process that you've proposed, because I actually had asked previously the same question of staff and was it was told a different answer. But I just got an answer from the city attorney that it is possible. So I didn't get an answer at all. So let's compare notes. If we could hear from the city attorney, I think that that would. Be helpful for Mr. Sharon. So I think the question that was asked is that does this exemption of the Surplus Lands Act that staff is proposing to take require that we run an RFP? The answer is no. The the Council may recall that there was a previously published staff report that indicated that an RFP is required, and at that time, that staff report was relying on a different exemption. Having considered further, we believe that this exemption is a more sound exemption to rely on and under this one, an RFP not explicitly required under the Surplus Lands Act. Okay. Ms.. Potter And then Ms.. Vela. I was just going to say that that however, the staff recommendation continues to be the same, which is to go out to an RFQ for the next four weeks and obviously encourage folks who have previously responded to update, refine, modify their submittal. And it's just an opportunity to continue that and make sure that we've done a thorough outreach to developers who may be potentially. Thank you. I think we all understood the recommendations of the staff report. What and again, I just we might turn up that heretofore undiscovered developer or we might find ourselves marching for more weeks into an uncertain economic future and maybe even reducing our chances of putting together a viable package. I don't and again, you know, this is just everybody's basing their thoughts on their best calculations. But I would like a discussion of the of this proposal. It sounds like Councilmember Fellow once again. And we if you couldn't tell we have not discussed this, but what you had your hand up, please. So, Madam Chair, thank you for raising this suggestion. I think that it addresses the concern about another delay. I do know that I at least I don't have any reason to believe that the other two developers that had submitted proposals that don't have an interest, at least that that hasn't been conveyed to me. I think the opposite's been conveyed that that they did have an interest and I guess my concern is why are we redoing an RFP and wasting more time when we had four proposals? Could those proposals be more developed or nuanced? I think they I think that they they could. But I also think that some of them were open ended enough that it'd be interesting to see what they come up with. My other concern would be, you know, we've we did go out for proposals and nobody else submitted and so are we just going out and casting another net, which is going to take up more time? And that's my concern. So I'm I'm perfectly happy to move forward with your proposed suggestion, with the clarification from our city attorney, that that is, in fact possible, because I was under an understanding that we were legally required to put out a second RFP or RFQ. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Levitt, did you want to add anything. I would recommend, even if you went to a, I guess, sort of a direct solicitation of the to development. See it, see CGI that came, as I said, came to the city unsolicited. I am. Yeah. So if you went to the three, I'd still give some time for them to respond, knowing what is occurred with the other two development, how they did not have the economics to be able to deal with this, that these could learn from that experience and build them over. Well, what I what I was proposing, and I think, Ms.. Vela, I think was in sending, is that we would ask for updated essentially responses to exactly what staff has put together. Is that. Well, is that what you're thinking of? I think if there's an we're asking basically for amended responses, updated or updated based off of the new information. I'm fine with that. Okay. Okay. And otherwise, I would agree with all the staff recommendations. But the rest of the council. What do you think? Councilman Brody, thank you. So let me understand the proposal. It's to just limit the universe to the three that submitted it before. And then what would our deadline for them to update be? Well, I think if we were looking at it at four weeks, a four week window to respond, I would still do the four week window. I mean, I guess if we're going to take four weeks, no matter what, there may be somebody out there that might respond. I don't know. But. I mean, if you could say we're going to just do that in one week, then. Well, you know. Okay, that. Okay. Canterbury Council member I Vice Mayor Knox White Yeah. So I would be very uncomfortable adding in somebody who just voted in an unsolicited interest. I think it's one thing to say we had an RFP and we're not going to move forward with people who came through with that. But I think to add a third person, it's starting to get a little loose. And and to Councilmember Ortiz point, I think I don't see a scenario where we ask all of a sudden today, oh, now you've got a week to to submit information. It seems like like like it's going to be that useful. I think if we can get this done in, if we can do it. RFQ In four weeks, I've heard that there have been some other people that have at least expressed interest. If we end up with the same three, we've lost a week or two at the most. But we know we know that we've actually done the broad thing. And then I would like if we were to move forward with an RFQ, I would like to have a date certain that this is coming back at the first meeting of June with a recommendation from staff and that, you know, that would be a part of the recommendation. But it seems like we're kind of trying to we're playing with only a couple of weeks. And with that being the math, I think it would be beneficial to just go with the RFQ and see if there are a couple of other people. It would also give the that whether it's Brookfield or Catullus or OCI, now that I see ICICI, the opportunity to spend a little time here from the, you know, get the, the scoring criteria, which is not currently in the RFQ, etc., and really respond knowing that they're responding to what the city's looking for . So I will just note that I was also hearing several the council lament the fact that we've lost five months already. And I think, again, I do think time is of the essence. But to the point you raised about not wanting someone who came unsolicited to us who I think is actually doing some work elsewhere now, I made a point, but Mr. Chan, can you comment on that. On whether or not. We could also include CGI? The council has wide ranging latitude here, so the council could direct staff to do any number of things, whether it's an update, including an unsolicited bidder, to go out to get a new bid. You have wide ranging latitude here. As long as that the process is fair and gives all parties an opportunity in a reasonable time to respond if you were to do it. Okay. And by the way, I notice that in the the staff report, sometimes the term RFQ is used and sometimes the term RFP is used and there is a difference. And it's the RFP that has this pretty pictures and I don't think most of us are. But this is a request for qualifications, is it not correct? Yes. Ms.. Potter is nodding her head. Yes. Um, Councilmember Desai, Councilmember Odie, anything you want to add? Councilmember Desai One. Point that I would add is I understand Alameda Point collaborative desire to be closely involved in this, but I think we need to be mindful that, you know, they are they are potentially material beneficiaries of this whole process. So certainly we need to welcome their involvement, but we also need to, you know, make sure that everyone understands that, that this process is, you know, is transparent and fair in terms of the, uh, RFQ, whether it should be done on a select basis. The reality was that when I had voted for Alameda Point Partners, when we first did the go around actually was very close for me. It was very close between Alameda Point Partners and Catalist, and my working theory was basically that I believe in and continue to believe that entities who do good work for the city of Alameda are, you know, we should make no apologies in and acknowledging the good work that these entities had done. From my vantage point at the time, I thought, you know, so I had to wait very close to leave the good work that Alameda Point Partners had done with regard to site A and the different commitments that they had made contractually with those good works versus the good work that could tell us had done what they were putting together. Bay Port Along with Alameda Landing, I ultimately went with Alameda Point Partners because I certainly like their transit commitments, contractual commitments. So, you know, if Catullus is still interested in this project, I have no qualms and moving forward with them. I mean, there are proven entity. People know what they. In the city of Alameda and four, the city of Alameda. I'm not too sure about Brookfield, although I realize I think they're doing the project over there at, um, uh, Don Parker's old project. And just for clarification, and don't stop his time while I'm talking, please. We are not here tonight just to let you know about your plan. Okay. You're saying go for it to have us of a select entities as opposed to a broadly open RFQ process. And all I'm saying is, I think we have before us, you know, some entities that seem to be no and I don't know cei that well but I certainly know. Could tell us so. So if the argument is to have it to basically continue to the RFQ that we had started with several years ago by virtue of the fact that Al made a point, partners had dropped out and others had dropped out. I'm fine with that. Okay. And just for clarification, I mean, Councilmember, somebody asked the question, I don't think we get an answer, but are there other developers showing interest because we like to make an informed and it could be yes. No, you don't need to name the names. But Mr. Levitt, did you want to say something before him as far. As the three that expressly contact us, which are the three. That are listed in the staff report? Right. We as part of this process, we did reconfirm that the two other of the four finalists were still interested. That continues to be the case. Four finalists of the four finalists, Brookfield and Catullus, continue to be interested. Okay. Um, C.I. has provided an unsolicited proposal, and I actually have received several inquiries from developers who are interested potentially. And we have let them know that we are recommending to staff the RFQ process and to put their name on an interest list. Okay. Well, that's new information. So and these are developers who never have applied before this project. As far as I know, in I, you know, a broker says I represent someone who's interested. You know, someone else calls and says, I'm interested. I don't I can't sit here and say that they're for sure real. And once they look at the RFQ, they're still going to continue to be interested. But we've had we've had expressions of interest. Councilmember Vela I guess my concern with this is the fact that that's that's not as solid as an actual response to our request. And we had a previous request out there. My concern is, are they hoping that our new RFQ is going to be giving them more things that they wouldn't have gotten before? And are we then kind of setting ourselves up for less? And that would be my concern with that. I also think that time is of the essence, and I'm wondering if we have that shortened process. You know, the vice mayor had asked could it come back by date certain in July. And I'm wondering, we already heard just sorry, June 1st week in June. I'm wondering if it couldn't come back even sooner than that, if we're talking about an update and just three, three, two or three groups. I you know, my concern with C.I. is that they didn't submit something early on if there was something that we liked about that package and therefore staff is trying to include them. I'd like to know, you know what? Let's put that on the record so that we can make sure that that's what we're going to get in the update. And I think it is I think the the updated RFQ that you've proposed already exemplifies some of the things that we're we're looking for. So I think that if, you know, if these other two are interested and want to be competitive, they're going to look at that and provide us with an update that answers it and either meets those meets those things or doesn't. And I would just add that I would be hard pressed to omit someone who specifically has come forward showing interest and I think has shared financial information, if I am correct. And to clarify, C.I. was initially part of the James team, right? That's and then James. That's right. Forward with AP. I think C.I. had a lesser role and then their proposal that they submitted was a reflection of some other thoughts and ideas they had separate from there. So they they were a part of the initial process, councilmember capacity. But yes. Sorry, did you have your hand up or you. I'll just say. Even if you did. I agree with the vice mayor that I'd like a date certain. So I guess the option is open it up to others and then we kind of start over, right? Or we take the three people that already did the RFP and ask them to update it and then. With a date certain. Also what the dates are. Yes. Yes. And does that ultimately bias? A lot more time. I mean, I think I think it does. Councilor, finish what your thoughts are and then. Councilmember de. I see. Because now I understand the question solved. Yeah. You know now that you mentioned that C.I. has has was part of the original RFQ in some way, I'm satisfied that that, you know, they're not going to be this oddball, this outlier. Whereas when I was. Whereas Qatar and and the other entity had been intimately involved, um, just for history sake, this wouldn't be the first time that we had closed RFQ RFP process. When we did Bayport, it was started that in 1997, Bayport was actually not part of FISC. So we did the RFP process for the FISC in 1997. And then in February of 1997, we decided that we were going to we were going to include what turned out to be Bayport as part of the FISC RFP process. And but, but we had limited the, the respondents to the three entities who had responded to the FISC original FISC, which is our data landing, original FISC RFP and that was Catalist Lincoln Properties. And one name escapes me. So this wouldn't be the first time. And I think the product speaks for itself. Councilmember Vela I just. Like to make a motion. My motion would be that we direct staff to ask for an update from the three entities, the three developers that have previously submitted responses, and that we have this come back to us. I actually would like it to come back to us in May. Is that realistic? Ms.. Potter, where are you? Oh, there you are. And I will note that in the staff report, because it was one of the questions. And, Mr. Levitt, you have the floor in just a minute. But I had a question that it did say that the staff would be coming back with their recommendations by the end of the first quarter of 2020, maybe that month of fiscal year 2020. That was that. I thought I had changed that. That was a holdover. That was there. From the holdover from February. Okay. So it really is the second quarter. And I mean, we can absolutely strive for the second meeting in May. I'm just going to say that our internal with the package being published 12 days ahead in our internal process of being out with a staff report a month before internally is really what the constraint is for us. But we I understand the urgency with which the Council is approaching this and we will endeavor and do our darndest to be back at the second meeting of May. But that's our challenge, is really the lead times for this. I do understand the lead time. I just this these particular economic times were in make me really nervous, Mr. Leavitt. So I had actually been doing the math on here, and we hadn't had a chance to look at it or talk, obviously, because it's while you're talking. This is real. Time. So March 9th, if I was able get out March 9th based on the statement, which is a monday and you just did three weeks, you could get to March 30th, which then gives about a three week review to get it into the pack and process which gets you to the second meeting, a May. 2nd meeting in. May. But that would mean you have about a three week review process of the RFP, which means that Debbie is going to have to reorient some of her priorities, which definitely can happen. But I've heard you talk before at goal setting about we want to stick to deadlines. And when you give us an expectation, we want you to be able to meet it. That's a tight expectations. I appreciate that, too. I think we have a number of factors going on that there has been a bit of a delay getting to this point. But I feel like much of the heavy lifting has already been done because you've had this subcommittee you worked with to develop the RFQ. And so it's not as though you're starting from square one. And this council's priority, as I recall, is housing, housing and more housing. And so I you know, I give you credit for managing your staff, but I think this and it's just such an integral part of moving forward on our Alameda Point development. So I would like to see all deliberate speed put together toward this. So we and I'm looking the second May meeting is May 19th. Correct. And that would be Tuesday. Yeah. That'd be the third Tuesday persons. Which is it. Yeah. Okay. I'll second if there's. Okay. We have a motions move by Councilmember Vela, seconded by Councilmember. So discussion. We're ready to vote and then the rest of the and everything else is just as proposed in the the the staff report, correct. Yes. Okay. All right. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor. I, I didn't. And Councilmember Vice mayor and that's why. Can I ask a quick question? This is definitely coming back on the 19th of May. Um, that's the direction I've heard. So it will be back on the 19th of May. One way or the other? Yes. I mean, if we can't commit to that, then there's no point not moving forward with the RFQ. All right. Because the next meeting is the first meeting in June, which we've had. So you you're asking for a clarification question of whether it would come back in May. Mr.. LEAVITT Well, we will re-orient priorities in committee development to make it May 19th. Um. Okay. Thank you. Yes, I. Okay, so was that unanimous? All right. The motion passes, and thank you very much. Okay. She may need a break before we move on to our next item. Okay, then we are moving on. Thank you, everyone. We are moving on. Back now. We're going to go back to 6 a.m., so 6 a.m.. And cementing the Ms. code by adding provisions to Section four, Dash 232 Firearms and Weapons of Article five, Firearms and Explosives of Chapter four, offenses and Public Safety requiring safe storage of firearms and enhancing enforcement provisions and introduction of ordinance. Amending the aluminum visible code by adding provisions to Section four. Dash 36 License requirements for Firearms and Munitions Dealers of Article five, Firearms and Explosives of Chapter four. Offenses and Public Safety requiring firearms dealers to provide video surveillance and enhancing enforcement provisions.