Final Passage of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Ten-Year Lease with Two Ten-Year Renewal Options and an Option to Purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopers, LLC for Building 8, Located at 2350 Saratoga Street at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099)
To wait to see what the questions are before we do the presentation. We may be able to respond to the questions without the presentation. Okay. Then I'm going to go ahead and call the speaker at this time. Michael McDonough. Good evening, mayor, and members of the council and staff. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. I wanted to repeat our support for this project, the chamber's support for this project. In the last reading, I made the point that the formula for evaluation had been set by presidents, so that should not be an issue . But as one going on further than that, as one of the esteemed members of this council said after the last reading, and I paraphrase, It's not just the price for the land, but the cumulative value for Alameda after the project has been developed. And this project really is a tremendous value to Alameda, we believe. Number. Me tell. You. I know that last time. I think you're sitting in the corner. Number. Number one, it transforms a long, vacant space that no one else has stepped up with. Another offer that would make a better value to the city. It's also an opportunity to expand on the maker's movement that has sprung up in Alameda, but not only adult makers spaces. There's been one very interested tenant that will bring a kid's maker space there, and I think that's tremendous for the kids that we have. I've also spoken to the developer about making vocational educational opportunities available. Things that are now no longer available in our high schools. But I think an important part of the future employment of our kids who don't choose to go on to college and. Lastly, the project will bring about 480 permanent jobs. But don't forget the temporary construction jobs, which many of our local businesses will bid and receive those contracts for the construction. And I know several that are members of the chamber that I know personally who intend to build on those projects. So we do believe this. This continues to offer great value to Alameda. We believe the value to the city as far as the price of the land is fair based on the improvements that are going to go in. And also the fact that it's a work live space really does mitigate any kind of traffic issues that might come up as well. So I think it's a win win for all and we support it. Thank you. So I had pulled this item at the last meeting. It was discussed. I believe the developer was thinking about having up to 100 space, 100 of these work live units. And at that time, the valuation per my question did not consider or was not affected by whether or not it had work live units. And the concern of mine and another and another concern is that these units do not count as housing for the city's code, which means they do not impact the number of housing units that we're required to have as the city. By the state. And now with this report that it appears that actually there's another part of the city's code, so that the number, the maximum number of work live units is anywhere between 73 to 86. Now that there's the city's. Change the number of units from what the what was spoken last time. Can someone speak to that? Evening. Mr. Spencer members of the Council. In terms of the number of work live units allowed on the site, the city's work LIB ordinance sets a maximum number allowed on any particular piece of property. It's almost based on the size of the property. This 73 number is based on a the specific amount of land that is available to this project. Today, there is another small piece that we anticipate will become part of the project in the future when the Navy conveys it to the city. It's the reason why we expect it to be part of the project is because we know where the roads are and that peace is between the building and the road. So it's a natural addition. So if you do the calculation on how many work live units they can do on the property today, based on the actual land that we have from the Navy, it's 73. If you assume that that sliver of land that's adjacent, which is on their side of the road, comes to us from the Navy, which we fully expect it will, and that then becomes transferred to this project. And then when you do that math on the project, it goes up to I don't have the number in front of me, but I believe it's 86. So. And one last just. Just so I know I know the mayor understands this, but for the public, the way this process has to play out, of course, is they can't do a single unit without a conditional use permit issued by the city of Alameda. There has to be a review and approved by the city, the planning board, and then is subject to appeal or call up for review by the council. And it's that process where the city and the community can decide what the right number of units is. It might be less, but it cannot be more. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think that the point of about the residential portion of our work, live spaces is is a good point. But as you point out, that question is not on the table at this point, though. It has to go through a use permit process. And I think we do need to have that discussion because that that option is available in commercially zoned areas, and there's other restrictions that are described in our code. But I think we need to have a broader discussion on that. But as far as the item that's on the agenda right now, I, I think it's very specific to the entitlements that go with the lease option to buy. And I'd like to call the question on that. Um. On this. This is it. This is doing the motion. Go ahead. I'll make that motion. I move. Final passage of the ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease with 210 year renewal options and an option to purchase with Alameda Point Redevelopment LLC for Building eight located at 2350 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga Street and Alameda Point. All those in favor. Oh, well. Okay. So then you can. Okay. All right. Because when you said call the question. Yeah. All right. Oh, well, thank you. I just want to quickly say that, you know, with the building project, we're really getting into the, if you will, there and the hand combat portion where of of base reuse, where we're really getting into those buildings that are so decrepit and that that we need people who are willing to take that entrepreneurial risk as it is already. You know, several would be developers have already fallen by the wayside in attempting to tackle these really, really difficult buildings. In the case of Caruso, they wanted to do the E Oak or BQ and also another site. So, you know, I think we're making a decision with our eyes wide open on behalf of the residents of Alameda. And in terms of the the financials, I'm satisfied that that we've done our due diligence and I'm satisfied with with the capacity of this entity to do follow through. But it is a difficult situation. And and, you know, that's why I think on the matter of work live, I'm okay with whatever the number is. So that's going to go through the process for the decision that we have to make tonight. I think. Are I speaking of one off, I feel satisfied having exercised due diligence on behalf of the residents of Alameda. And Brody. Surely you have called the question. So that eliminates or is going to. Say it's time to. Vote, have anything more to add that hasn't been already said. So. All right, then. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose that motion passes 4 to 1. And next item. And when you say. Oh, yeah. Yep. So I'm very sure my apologies. Thank you. All right. Now we go to the regular agenda item six, a. Response to a city council referral regarding a possible wetlands mitigation bank in Alameda Point. Good evening, Mayor. Council members like. My name's Jennifer Bass, race director. Been here a couple other times. We're going to talk about wetlands mitigation banks in the Bay Area. When there there's development that occurs in the Bay Area, there are times when that development impacts or potentially impacts wetlands along the bay. And typically the regulators like the Army Corps and other folks try to essentially eliminate those impacts, if possible, or avoid them. But there are times when that there's reasons that coastal development, it's unavoidable to avoid impacts to wetlands. And so what the regulate the regulatory system in the Bay Area has allowed is that essentially if you impact mitigation or you impact wetlands, you have to essentially mitigate your impact. And so that that overall that there is kind of a no net new net no net loss of wetlands along the in the coastal areas and in