Presentation on Site A Development at Alameda Point, Including Initial Development Concept. (Base Reuse 819099)
First, and this is the first time that the community will be able to comment publicly on the development concept that's been put forward by the proposed developer for for site a before delving into to the site a process. I want to give a little bit of history. Just there's a lot of context. I mean, a point and a lot of that helps understand why certain decisions were made. And so I want to go back a little bit in time. I'll do it quickly. I know we have a big agenda just to provide that context. Once I'm done, I'm going to try to keep my presentation to, you know, 5 minutes, maybe a little longer. And then the developer is here to to present their development concept. So I'm going to let them present as well. I'm really after two unsuccessful master developer processes. And when I say master developer, I mean a single developer for the entire 900 acres of property. At Alameda Point, there were two unsuccessful attempts to enter into agreements with those master developers. And after that happened, the city really kind of step back and city staff and city council, where should we go from here? What should we do? And I think the real the real focus was on let's let's not engage again with the developer right away, let the community kind of look at its plans. Let's go over those plans. Let's have a real engaged community process. We learn from some of our mistakes. So the city has worked closely with the community over the last two years to adopt a vision or kind of almost in some ways re adopt a vision for Alameda Point, which really focused on a mixed use, transitory development that limits jobs and attracts our limited housing and attracts jobs. And that really was going back to a 1996 reuse plan that hundreds of hours of community time was spent developing and really kind of in some ways skipping over all of those the developer plans and going back to that original community plan from 1996 that said we didn't want to just take for granted that that vision from 1996 still made sense. That's obviously a long time ago. Let's make sure that that still makes sense for today. And so we actually before we did any kind of real detailed entitlements around me to point, we actually wanted to go through a process of reaffirming the vision from the community reuse plan. By adopting this planning guide is what we called it. Some of the looking really closely at some of the key policies and key principles of that reuse plan going through public process with the planning board, a number of meetings at the planning board, a couple of meetings with the council talking about that planning guide and kind of re adopting that as is kind of the overarching, overarching vision before we entered into a much more detailed entitlement process. Then subsequent to that, we had about 30 public hearings from all of almost all of the city's boards and commissions, 19 presentations to community groups, ten community events, including a really successful bike tour that we did that had over 130 people there. We actually biked around, talked about the different parts of the base, really fun event was a really great way to to see I mean a point in fact email blast Facebook, Twitter numerous articles in the local newspapers that all culminated in approvals of of the detailed entitlements, including on February 4th, the city council approving a zoning amendment. So we went from a industrial overlay at the base which was consistent with the Navy's use of the property to a mixed use plan that broke the project into subdistricts, that contemplated mixes of uses a master infrastructure plan. If we weren't going to if the plan isn't to reengage a single developer to take over the whole property, we need to make sure that we have a plan for how all the infrastructure is going to fit together. What are those costs? Make sure we look at all of that in detail and adopting this master infrastructure plan. So anything, you know, sewers, storm drains, sea level rise, flood protection, all these different issues. And then an environmental impact report that study very carefully all of the environmental impacts, potential environmental impacts from the project, including traffic, historic impacts to cultural, historic resources, biological resource, extensive document about this tunnel that looked at all of those impacts and disclose all of those to the public before any approvals were made. And then on May 20th, the City Council approved a transportation demand management plan and on July 1st, a town center waterfront plan. The zoning actually required in a couple of areas where it was around the waterfront or some of the housing areas where we knew the community was really wanting to delve into some of the details. We actually said, you know what, the zoning is not enough. You don't just get to have the zoning. You actually have to have a specific plan that gets into the real nuts and bolts and details of those areas before you can build anything there. And then. Funding from MTC, we're able to fund the waterfront town center plan. And in a I think in February we got additional funding to finish the other specific plan that will be coming to the council with a contract for. So then once it wasn't until we had these documents in place that the city decided to take a first step into engaging a developer. So really, instead of seeking a developer to come in and say, Hey, community, this is what we want to build, we took a different approach of saying, Well, we've gone through our process of deciding what we want. Now, is there a developer out there that wants to build that? So taking really a reverse approach to some of the past efforts and ultimately did an RFQ from developers for a smaller scale site, not for the whole cyber 68 acres instead of the full 900 acres. So an initial modest first step for a mixed use plan right at the Gateway. And ultimately, the council entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with that developer. And this is really the kickoff of that community process, really, at tonight's meeting of let's look at the plans that the developer and that's proposing. And let's this is an initial concept. We're going to get into more detail. We're going to be back here before you every month. So we're looking at site A is 68 acres right here at the Gateway. That is the site we're talking about. We actually at the same time and I don't I know we have limited times. I don't wanna go into too much detail, but I think it's important to understand, as we also did at the same time, an RFQ for a commercial only site for about 82 acres. And through that process, we we got nine responses here. We got four responses for site B and and I'll get into a little bit more about the results of the that the site B process. But the site a RFQ is for six eight acres, a mixed use site, 800 housing units, 200,000 square feet of commercial uses consistent with the zoning, the map and the town center. Plan nine Highly Qualified Responses. We had two finalists that we decided to negotiate with, negotiate a term sheet with. So instead of just selecting one based on their qualifications, we said we're going to narrow it down to the two top developers that have, we believe, have the best qualifications. But at that point, now we want to talk about the financial terms and the other terms to make sure that we're getting the best deal for the city. And so we went into that extensive process. I'm going to talk to you about the results of that, but ultimately decided to recommend two point partners as that preferred developer . The site B process, we went through the exact same process and that process, on the other hand, through that process of negotiating these term sheets with the two commercial developers, neither of them were willing to pay any money for infrastructure. We're willing to commit to any schedule for developing the property, basically willing to weren't willing to provide any commitments to the city in terms of timing or land value or infrastructure commitment. And so the the ultimate decision was to essentially postpone that until this year. We didn't recommend going forward with those those we did not believe it was in the city's best interest to enter into a development agreement with someone that wasn't willing to commit to any milestones or commit to any infrastructure. And so that is essentially on hold, I should say. One of the four developers on in four site B also dropped out even before we got to that point because of concerns over the market for new commercial development and I me to point. Ultimately, we selected our main point partners to it with an exclusive negotiating agreement, which is a partnership of SRM, Ernst Thomson, Dorfman Partners, Madison, Marquette and Tricon Capital. Each of these kind of specialize in a different SRM. IRN specializes in commercial development, although is working on mixed use projects and essentially provides the project management piece of this as well. Thompson Dorfman Partners is the multifamily housing. Madison Marquette, a national retail developer, and then Tricon Capital is the capital funding. They have extensive experience on large scale, mixed use infill development. Joe Ernst, the project manager, lives in Alameda, has successfully implemented high profile commercial projects in Alameda, the VFF outdoors pizza roasting facility. And one of the things we really liked about their approach was a more incremental approach that emphasizes reuse of existing buildings for commercial uses and a truly mixed use developer that has different developers that don't just focus on housing but have the retail experience, have the build to suit commercial. And that were, we believed, were really best positioned to deliver a mixed use project to the city. Site, a term sheet so attached to this exclusive negotiated agreement was a term sheet of these terms that we had negotiated, in fact, with both developers before we selected the finalist. And that resulted in an agreement in this term sheet to provide about $103 million in infrastructure amenities for Alameda Point with an important focus on three things and these were. Staff's focus the entire time was on what is this project going to provide for the rest of Alameda or for for the development of jobs out there? And so we focused on three things. One, transit infrastructure, parks and open space, and then utilities and amenities that create a catalyst for jobs. So transit infrastructure there in the Phase one have agreed to provide a complete gateway, gateway extension of Ralph Bizzaro Memorial Parkway into Alameda Point Point from Main Street all the way to Seaplane Lagoon , including dedicated bus, rapid transit lanes, payment of $10 million for upfront construction of a new ferry terminal to Seaplane Lagoon. And we're going to be able to leverage these funds to actively pursue $25 million in Measure B funds and federal grants for West End transit, bike and pedestrian improvements. So not onsite, but offsite developer being able to leverage these commitments to be able to pursue these other funds for offsite pedestrian multi-modal improvements. Parks and open space 36 and a half million dollars, or about 33% of the total infrastructure they're planning, is going towards parks and open space. That includes an eight acre waterfront park along the northern edge of the seaplane lagoon and neighborhood park, greenway. Flood protection and geotechnical improvements related to the parks, which is it's very expensive. A first phase of development to include 5 million towards a waterfront park, an upfront payment of $5 million towards an initial phase of the sports complex , which is a 44 acre sports complex, actually planned offsite on the northern part of the property. Catalyzing employment uses all the infrastructure amenities that help retain existing jobs and catalyze new jobs and redevelopment were prioritized. So for instance, and I know it's not very interesting, but a sewer line, it's probably one of them. If you ask our engineers, you know, technically, probably the number one thing that needs to get built to be able to catalyze jobs, especially for a new commercial development, which is in the southern part of the property. Because, you know, our luck is that an actual sewer pump stations on the, you know, direct opposite northern part of the property. And so being able to create building that sewer line from the gateway all the way up to the Northern Pump Station now makes it that much more feasible for us to be able to open up that job, the new development job center in the southern part, because you don't have to build the sewer line all the way up to the northern part. It's now built for you. You have to reach up to ramp up basato to grab it. It's a huge benefit, we believe, for not only the adaptive reuse area that it winds through, but ultimately that enterprise area in the southern part of the base. The Ramp Gateway Improvements create an attractive entry into Alameda Point. This is something we've heard. We heard from the commercial developers that we're interested in the site B, they said we need somewhere to bring the executives to tour them, to be able to help them visualize how a new campus here would make sense. And having an attractive gateway is key to that. Parks and Phase zero plans that bring amenities, early amenities to the waterfront to create a sense of place to offer amenities for employees, we believe is crucial to that. And this project has committed through their term sheet to build that. Site a next steps detailed project planning. So this is getting into the details of the site plan, you know, starting with the city council, the city council, as it says, in the end, it will be providing guidance to all these other boards and commissions about what they think of these plans will be taking that feedback from the city council, from all the boards and commissions, and making sure this development plan evolves over time. So respond to those comments and then culminating ultimately. So that's through tonight, really through May of 2015 and then a recommendation for to the city council in May of 2015. What does that mean for the city council? It means we'll be here for you every single month reporting on the status of Site A and the development there, and giving you feedback on all the different refinements that are being made as this process evolves and responds to the community feedback and the city council feedback and the other boards and commissions. I'm happy. I'm happy to answer any questions, but it probably makes sense at this point. I turn it over to our developer. Joe Ernst is here from Endpoint Partners to briefly provide a little of his vision and then turn it over to his planner, urban planner to present their concept. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the Council. My name is Joe Ernst and with SRM behalf of my partners, we're very happy to here tonight. Be here tonight to give you an update on the project process. You know, as Jennifer mentioned, we continue to bring a very solid team to this project. It's a very local team. And therefore, we bring a lot of local market knowledge and expertize, relationships that I think we'll bear well on this project. We are a mixed use team. We have very strong commercial retail capabilities, which we know is a key goal of the community for the point. And we've heard time and again the community council members talk about transit. We're very committed to working with the council, to working with community on transit solutions and both implementing them and monitoring them, tracking them going forward to make it work. I think with Alameda Point, you know, it means many things to many different people, whether you're for or against. I think many. Can agree this is a prime priority. Project for the community. And as a result, you know, that played heavily in the evolution of our plan. You know, we've we've chosen to embrace the base to be a part of it, not to scrap it and start from scratch. And we do have our planners here from bar architects tonight who will give you more of an overview of that. However, a few things I'd like to talk about. You know, we do remain committed to jobs and open space and being a catalyst for that. You know, our preliminary plan you'll see tonight does have about 20% more publicly accessible open space in it than the town center price precise plan. We were able to do that because this plan, you will see, you know, does not contain 68 acres of what I'd call a traditional low density, high car use housing we do. As a result, we do retain ample area for business and for open space. Our retail commercial strategy is not formulaic. And again, we continue to focus on the artisan maker movement, one that's already developing there. We've seen this time and again serve as a catalyst for urban redevelopment and job generation in other markets. The residential component clearly remains critical to, you know, the community's collective end goal, and that's namely jobs in parks. You know, in this era of post redevelopment, the residential is really the only way to generate sufficient capital to do the infrastructure to to develop the parks. But we've done our residential in a way, not just to, you know, fill up the site. We've we've tailored it to leave ample space for business and parks. We've tailored it to attract a demographic that we think that we know more readily embraces transit solutions. You know, the infrastructure that will be undertaking with city does present a minimum scale. We believe, you know, based on our engineering study to date, to really provide some economies to do this right. You know, to do this on a site by site basis, as you know, each prospective owner would come in, would probably rate about 2 to 3 times. You know, just quickly to wrap up, we know that, you know, from our experience what quality companies want, you know, what it takes to attract businesses, the Alameda and the East Bay, you know, these companies always tell us they want mixed use housing, they want amenities, they want transit access. They want these in close proximity without that. And we've seen this in our business parks, that Alameda business parks are often left to compete left to compete on low cost only. And as a result of that, you know, we see our business parks suffer more greatly, the ebbs and flows of strong and weak markets. And these result in lower proper, you know, value propositions that would not support the infrastructure costs at city. So, you know, we need to change the game out there and with, you know, an infrastructure and the type of project proposed for site. So with that, these are the things that guide us. These are the things that, you know, we are thinking about as we develop this plan. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to our team to walk you through the concept. So thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the council staff. I am here representing a fairly broad design team. I have with me William Duncanson from our office, also April Phillips of April Phillips Design Works Landscape Design Firm. But there are many other people that have participated in this process. As you see on this. What's your name? I'm sorry. Your name? My name? David Israel. I'm principal in charge. Would be architects. And I recognize your picture. Thank you. So the parcel site A is what you see depicted on the screen here. As we started to look at this, we really started to look in at the site more closely and really try to understand what is it that would make this a place that Alameda deserves? It should. It's a very special site. It's a very special city. It is an island. It is unique in that regard. And the site is very unique. It's got a unique history. It's got a unique sense of place. So how can we create something here that is uniquely about both Alameda and about the history and character of Alameda Point? So as we looked at that, we looked at a concept that's actually described here called palimpsest. And this is a this is the notion of reusing something, but reusing it in a way that still retains the character of its origins. And so what we started to look at was, as Joe said in his presentation, rather than coming in and saying there is nothing here of value, we're going to scrape the entire site and build it in a completely cohesive and uniform way. We felt it would be much better to try and take advantage of some of the natural characteristics you see on the screen here, photos of the existing some of the existing buildings that are adjacent to the site. Obviously, as you come in on ramp, this axial view to San Francisco is like something no other place can really enjoy. So how do we create a place that really, really resonates with this place? And how do we really reinforce some of these important axes and places where people will really be drawn to? So as we as we looked at some of the existing buildings, some of the existing buildings, while they do not necessarily qualify as historic landmarks, they do have a sense of context and they do have a sense of place and they have a sense of unique characteristics that you don't necessarily replicate with new buildings. So what we have done is we looked at the overall site plan and we started to look at how we might be able to integrate some of the existing buildings and some of the existing characteristics that compromise or comprise the existing site. And how we might take a look at reusing and repurposing some of those like you have seen in some places like the French Bakery at Santa Cruz or the House of Air and the Presidio of San Francisco. These were all very humble buildings in their origins, but they all share the benefit of authenticity. They share the benefit of unique structural characteristics and the kind of buildings. And when we started to talk to Madison, Marquette, our retail development partner, started to say, these are things that really can draw commercial enterprise to buildings that are not formulaic. They are unique. They are the kinds of buildings that you don't readily find. So we feel that there's a real great opportunity here to integrate. And it also allows us to, again, as I say, give a sense of place much more quickly because we have some established buildings that have established character. Another example, Granville Island in Vancouver, a fabulous place that is so crude in many ways, but so sophisticated in other ways that it's a place people just love to go to. It still has an active concrete plant on site, and yet it's a very rich tourist. It's actually the, if I remember correctly, it's the highest tourist attraction in the whole country of Canada, which is kind of amazing. So again, examples there where they have taken some of the humble industrial buildings and really turned them into wonderful market places. And again, from an economic perspective, we can offer these buildings because their existing structures, we can offer these buildings to potential commercial developers at a much more attractive point, you know, lease point, because we're not having to build brand new market rate buildings. So we get an economic diversity, we get an architectural diversity, and we get a characteristic, a character diversity that we would not otherwise get. So then we started to look at the precise plan as it was developed and approved. And we think there's a lot of really fabulous stuff in this precise plan. And as as Jennifer mentioned, there's a lot of very precise detail that sets up the character of not just what the buildings might be, but the spaces between the buildings, which are the spaces that the public really inhabits. So the character of those spaces, we absolutely plan to adhere to those characteristics that were well-studied, well conceived and will be following those characteristics. We did, though, look at some of the characteristics and in particular, we looked at the the important area where where ramp comes into the site and that and really. I'm sorry, before you continue. QUESTION Yes. On the last slide, I just wanted to I had a note here. Is that the Hornet on Pier One? I'm sorry. On the map. On the map. I'm sorry. Is that the. The Hornet. Aircraft? Yes, it is. Are you guys going to move the ship? The Hornet is not part of our. You know, I don't think we have any plans specific to the Hornet that I'm aware of. Joe might be able to. But yeah, this is this actually was in the precise plan. So that was. When you made the precise plan. That was. So yeah. So there was Skip there was actually a consultant, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. So him that worked for the city directly and these were just some initial concepts of things. We might be bringing more of visitors, serving aspects of of the base closer in together, but we don't have any current plans of moving the Hornet there. We mean the city, the developer. The city. That's a substantial. Yeah, no, yeah. That's I wouldn't pay. I mean we are not doing we're not we don't have plans at any point right now to do that. And in fact, there are potential plans in our lease with the Maritime Administration to maybe use that pier, generate revenue from that pier. So I think this was just a little and it's outside of our plan area. I think it was just a little creative license may have gone a little too. I just want to make sure that that's not real. No. Okay. Thank you. That's another discussion. Sorry. Sorry. That's okay. It's complete. As as Jennifer mentioned, it's it's certainly outside the area that we've that we've looked at at all. But you're not counting. On it to attract people to that place, the Hornet. Correct. So we really did start to look at what is the character of and we may want to flip back and forth between these two slides. And we'll look at this in a lot more detail as we as we move on. But as you came down ramp, the new configured ramp Parkway, the precise plan had that as an what I'll call, for lack of a better term, an engineered roadway that went through this pedestrian node. When we really started to look at the precise plan and what we thought should really take place there, we thought the circulation that the precise plan represents makes sense. What we thought was important, though, was when you got to that important pedestrian zone that we it becomes a much more pedestrian oriented place. So rather than it just being a street that wanders through that pedestrian location, we've reconfigured this to bring active uses, retail, residential and commercial closer to the water and to create a place that obviously it will be very apparent is meant for pedestrians rather than as a primary location for cars. And we'll get into that in a little bit more detail. So if you look at this precise plan or this this plan is illustrative plan, the yellow obviously represents housing the pink buildings, particularly ones with the E designation on them. Those are all actually existing buildings that we are intending to retain. And an important thing to note is that these large commercial buildings that are at the northern end of the project are also being contemplated to be. To be retained initially. Again, going back to my earlier comment, that allows us to have flexibility to bring people into those buildings early in the project's life and and bring them on board as an on an as needed basis rather than waiting to when the market will support new construction. That being said, it's still allows us to transition to new construction at any time that seems beneficial to the community. So again, when we when we did this, the idea was to follow the concepts outlined in the precise plan, but to really take a look at how could we create a place which is even more permeable and more connected, and how we bring people from these residential areas down through this new linear park. And we'll talk about that in a little bit more detail through this kind of more industrial, historic urban park zone and to the waterfront park zone. I sensing a question. Yeah. I mean, I met a mayor I did have a question on the the three park designations you just listed. Can you help us? Yeah. And actually, we'll get to that in just one, one or two more slides, and then I can go through them a little bit with a little bit more clarity, I think. So then we started to just look at some of the transportation configurations that were laid out in the precise plan and again evaluated how those fit into this plan. And again, it's a very it's a very direct mesh. And we have started discussions with with the transit district to verify route configurations and preference or bus movements. One of the things we've talked about a lot is the nature of a bus going through this important pedestrian location. And we're actually think we may be moving towards a solution which will bring busses. To that location, but not through that location. So we'll be sharing those as as those plans develop. But it's an exciting opportunity. The phasing then is outlined on this diagram. So phase zero are those things that we can do right away. And again, perfect example, these phase zero are existing buildings that in the precise plan were not there. But here we're retaining those so that we can get sort of instant sense of place right away. They are buildings that well, they may be humble, have great opportunity for unique revitalization and adaptive reuse. So we're excited about that opportunity. And then starting to really develop the waterfront where the where public will really be drawn to areas that they can really use. And the interface between existing buildings and the water will be very important. So now let's go to the to the overall diagram of the of these park districts. And so this is basically this notion that we're developing a waterfront park. The waterfront park is intended to do two things. One, make an active, highly evolving and interactive kind of public park where people can come take advantage of and reinforce the importance of the Pan AMS historic headquarters building, which, while it isn't on our site, is directly contiguous to it. And so reinforcing the importance of that axes out to the water and from the water back to it, so that we can always remember that the sort of the Star Clipper was an important part of the history of this site. And the and that building and its its contribution to the history of this site is always kind of present in your mind. And then these buildings in the waterfront park, as we're currently envisioning those will be highly flexible buildings, which could house a number of both community and or commercial activities. So again, providing a lot of flexibility then that, as you can see, starts to stitch together with what we're calling our Urban Park District, which is a variety of open spaces which meander through these existing buildings, again, giving you exposure to the characteristics of that kind of historic context, and then links you to the Neighborhood Park District , which connects you to both the commercial and to the residential neighborhoods, and allows for people to filter through those to this central link and back through the urban park and then to the Waterfront Park district as well. So this diagram sort of suggests the way that stitches together. So the idea is that there's a strong sense of connectivity, an easy way for people to go through a variety of green spaces that have a variety of characteristics. And as we get into the more detailed planning of the nature of those green spaces, we'll be presenting those to you in a lot more detail. But here are some imagery of some of the ones that are sort of inspiring some of our thinking places where people can sit, places where people can get sheltered from the wind. Places where people can connect with one another and look out at the views of the city of the water and back to the other commercial activities , places where people can gather in a variety of scales. These are some examples. I mean, we even want to take advantage of some of the existing rail lines that are there and integrate those into the landscape so that we don't just, again, strip away all the characteristics that made this place unique, but really try and build off of that character and really create a place that reflects that past. And then providing a variety of different green spaces and places for people to sit and respites where people can either gather in small groups, larger groups, or a very large community get get togethers. So this is a kind of comparison just to go back to the waterfront park. This was the the image on the right is the the image of the precise planned park. And you can see this was a street that came through and then retail was on one side of the street here and then jumped across the street and had retail there. Here we're showing a plaza that will be protected and still provide for movements of vehicles on the left hand side. But we have residential use that has ground floor retail consistent with the precise plan. And then we have a variety of different commercial and retail buildings that work their way around the the Waterfront Parkway. So again, we're at the very early stages of this. We're really excited about the opportunities. We're looking forward to your input and and developing this further and really making it a particularly incredible place for Alameda. I'm happy to answer any questions and I'm sure we'll be chatting quite a bit more as the process moves forward. But there's a lot of really great opportunity here. And. So thank you very much. Looks like we have approximately ten speakers, just the council square. And if there's clarifying questions, we'll take that now. Um. I have some questions. I have one on the design, which I think you would certainly be. You're the person another about aspects of, you know, how aspects that might be important to the business deal that we want to get into. So someone else might. And in terms of design. The thing that crosses my mind is the old Nancy Alameda is, in effect, a military town. It was a military town. And in that regard, you know, I remember things from City Planning School, Lewis Mumford talking about medieval cities, basically fortress cities and how there was, you know, an abundance usually of curving, winding roads for whatever reason. When you look at NASA Alameda, you actually see a lot of those and I think in large part to facilitate the movement of of goods through the transit. And so that's why you'll see. And also in the worst case scenario, if if certain aircraft had to be moved from one part of Alameda to another, that's why you have certain roads throughout that curve. Mm hmm. And actually, if you look at the the map of Alameda, you can kind of see the curve kind of extending perhaps to facilitate that. So one of the things that I'm interested in preserving is, is that that sense of, you know, in the built environment that that that sense of what a military town was like. And so. When I look at the residential side, for example, I see it's basically linear and just something to think about is perhaps is that having a because I think I saw in the orange I think I see there between the buildings, I see a walkway in between the buildings. Or perhaps something to think about is to incorporate whatever extent possible. I'm kind of curving feature to add that element of surprise that that Mumford would talk about when it came to these kinds of medieval towns. I think that's an interesting point. And the the townhouse this as as Joe mentioned in his introductory comments, one of the things that was very important to us was that this not come across as a completely homogenous design exercise. That's why we have a fairly diverse design team. So that will not be the hand of a single architect designing every one of these sites. So these are conceptual sites to test block sizes and potential densities and so forth. They're not really intended at this point to be resolved designs. Now, that being said, we have tried to respect the amount of input that went into the precise plan. And the precise plan was fairly precise about bringing the urban grid that exists through Greater Alameda and the rest of the base through this zone. So I think it's something we'd be happy to chat about, but that is something that was heavily debated. And I think the notion of that urban grid retain. Now, one of the things we thought was important, you know, as you enter the base and you see that jet on the greenway, we really wanted to make sure we could kind of keep that vestigial piece. So you can see we kind of kept the curve around one side of that so that we could keep that that sort of reminder that that origin. But I will say the only other place where the site gets fairly organic is through some of the existing buildings where again, the pathways through there are much more meandering. And that's not to say the character of the landscape won't have a great deal of of organic characteristic to its design. So this is I'm sorry, I just want to make sure we're sticking to clarifying questions right now. So it sounds like your question may very well have been, are you going to protect the circle? And I want to follow up with that. There are two circles. That sounds like you're not that that you will be taking out half of one of the circles. The yes, we we are that's what's proposed at this time. And to as it. Was in the precise plan. And to summarize my clarifying question, if it if we are to propose it in terms of clarifying questions, I think the question would be posed as, you know, to what extent, you know, can we have these kind of narrow pedestrian paths that are kind of that you would find in in so-called medieval fortress towns, especially as it relates to, you know, the path that I'm seeing right there? Is it I think it could add a level of mystery and what's at the end of the of that path, whereas the linear line is okay, you can see. It's. A completely agree with your sentiment. Oh, and one less thing. I also recognize, you know, the desire to continue the grid design. So that's no doubt that that's going to happen, especially along the major arterials. I'm just talking about kind of like cute little paths that perhaps are only for the residents, but nonetheless make it a special place like the. Do we have any other clarifying questions right now? Yes. So maybe this is for Jennifer. Thanks for the presentation, by the way. So you mentioned that you're going to be reporting back to the council February, March, April and May. So the first question is, can you kind of give us a high level outline of what you're going to be reporting back to us on those four meetings? And what other opportunities will the public have to provide input to the plan, input at the developers, interact with the developers and comment on the plan? Yeah, sure. Absolutely. So obviously tonight's meeting is a kickoff. The initial concept in February for the council will be coming back with a more complete we're going to kind of take the comments we get from city council. We're going to the planning board on Monday night 26, take those comments, start to prepare more formal development plan application . So an actual application entitlement package. So we'd be coming back in February to give you kind of to provide an update on that application. More detail is going to be a lot more detail on this that's going to start to get fleshed out. So that would be February. March is going to you know, as we go through that process, what we found when we did the entitlement process point is there starts to you start to distill down to a couple of key issues and things that people are grappling with and then have questions about. And so I imagine in March, by then we're going to have kind of distilled down, figured out what those are, start to hone in on those, make sure we bring those to the council, get some feedback, high level policy feedback from the council to start to hone in on how we tweak those, how we deal with those . April would essentially be the last, the according to schedule, the last chance before the planning board hears a recommendation for the council to again weigh in on some of those key issues. The package by then is going to be complete in terms of development plan. So just being able a chance to see that complete package one time before the plan, it goes to the planning board for recommendation and then ultimately to the Council in May in terms of other opportunities will be going to the planning board once a month as well providing workshops for up to. And there's a schedule actually attached to the staff report too for the community, for anyone who's interested. We have a web page now that we've created just related to site so people can find out when the latest meetings are. We have an email list that we send out and notify every time before we have a meeting so people can sign up on that Facebook Twitter page so we can make sure to keep people involved. But we'll be going to the Historic Advisory Board. There'll be a joint planning or Transportation Commission meeting in February, Park and Rec Commission in February. So all, you know, real extensive outreach. And then we have three open houses where, you know, if you if people are kind of intimidated or don't want to engage in this more formal planning process, we'll have three very low key open houses where the developer will have an opportunity to have the renderings. The latest pictures from the concept plan available. I will be there, staff will be available. People can just drop in from 6 to 8, ask questions of the developer, developer team, ask questions for me. And those would be the first one is going to be at Callahan piano and building 14 out at the base right on the waterfront. So people can kind of as they're looking at these renderings, think about the actual space that we're talking about and look at it. Then the second would be the library. And then the third with our concept right now it's still in development is actually have a walking tour. So to start at Main Street and Ralph Bazardo and then stop along the way at key locations along between Main Street and the Seaplane Lagoon so we can stop at a couple of key locations, actually show renderings of some of the ideas of what that space that you're standing on right here is going to look like. And then and that would be on a Saturday, Saturday morning and then end with a barbecue that allow people to actually be on the taxiways, have a barbecue, talk to the developers, talk to me, and just be at the space that we're talking about, because I think it's really important that I'll make point. I think we found this at the bike tour that it's you know, it's one thing to talk about and look at on an aerial. It's just so daunting and huge. But when you actually are there experiencing some of those spaces, I think it's really powerful and it helps people put in context what we're talking about because looking at these drawings, not everyone responds to these drawings and you need to see it and feel it. And that's what we're trying to provide those opportunities for. And that schedule, like I said, we'll probably attach that schedule, you know, in case some of the dates tweak or change these things always tweaking change. We'll have that attached to every council report. So everyone's going to know how to find out what the latest meetings are. Thank you. Remember Data and this is a question perhaps for chief operating officer on art in general, but do we have a sense as to the division between owner occupied and ran Iraqi pride units at this point? And I raise that because, you know, Alameda overall we have a we have a 47% homeownership rate and a 53% renter ship rate. And in the west end of town, it's a 30% homeownership rate and a 70% renter ship rate. And these are items that certainly affect the business deal. So, yeah, we don't have an we don't have a specific break. Yet. I mean, in thinking of integrating this with jobs and companies. And, you know, we heard tonight one of the companies there who wants to bring 300 employees, renters. You know, we are looking at a project that would be unique to what we've been building over the last several years. And looking at a predominantly rental project, you know, about 75% of our project, including the Affordable, would be rental. 25% ownership. I have a follow up question in regards to that. So it was my understanding that 25% of this project would be affordable below market rate housing. That's correct. And that is going to be apartments. Is that what you're looking at for that? It'll be a combination. It will be some of it will be apartments, multiple in multifamily. Some of it will be part of our townhome units. So it'll be a combination. And then do you have. Okay. So I know that's 25%. Is it possible to have that percentage be higher? So again, please, is. It possible to have that percentage be higher of the overall housing? Is it possible to. Oh, no. I mean, we'd have to look at other funding opportunities that might be available, other mechanisms. You know, we have a an affordable housing developer on our team. So we can certainly sit down with them and understand. But, you know, those there's very precise funding mechanisms for those. And so, you know, we need to kind of fit within those rules, but we can report back to you. Okay. And do you have any numbers in regards to what you plan, whomever is going to be charging rent or the purchase price of the units? Do you have any ranges to present us with at this point? Not at this point, no. In the future, do you anticipate that you'll be sharing that with us before making a decision on this? Yeah, it's all going to be very market based so we can share our market studies, you know, as they continue to develop. And when you're so when you're looking at this, what I'm hearing is that you're looking for new housing to accommodate employees coming to work at the point as opposed to housing for people that are already here in Alameda, for instance. We're we're looking I mean, we're looking at a true mixed use project. We're looking at this does present opportunities for people who do already live and work here in Alameda? I think at the in a hearing, we heard from one renter who works at VF Outdoor and we'll hear from more of those. I think that, you know, existing companies, employees want to live here and can't find rental housing. So we're we're targeting those as well as. Providing housing for companies who will want to locate at the base. And, you know, from my. Experience. In the many years working in commercial, you know, we hear time and again that companies want, you know, amenities, housing in very close proximity to their place of work. Those are the kind of things that attract, you know, quality jobs, dense jobs, meaning many jobs as opposed to the more traditional, you know, low density, big box logistics types. So thank you. And I have another follow up question in regards to staff. You had mentioned that part of this proposal is $5 million towards the first phase of the sports complex. What is the total amount of the anticipated cost of the sports complex? Well, we have the master infrastructure plan now is about $20 million. So this would be about a quarter of what we what we set aside. All right. Thank you very much. And I believe we have one more question. Well, more and more of a comment. I for one, I think the data when it comes to friendship in Alameda, I think the data indicates that we have a lot more rental units generally. And in the West End in particular, I think from the West End's point of view, there's been a long held desire for more owner occupied units. Now, that doesn't mean that we have. I'm sorry. Sorry. That's just we're going to be able to discuss later. We just want to have our clarifying questions and then I want to get to our speakers. Any other clarifying questions? It's clarifying. Thanks. So thank you, Ms.. And and the other presenters. Great presentations and the staff report I'm talking about web pages is three. But anyway it says that the planning board. With direction from the city council will approve a development plan after numerous public meetings. Thorough vetting by the community and I and forgive me if I miss this you've said it before, but how does the the city council give the planning board direction regarding the development plan? Does it go to the planning boards, city council, back to planning board or. Right. So for instance, tonight during the comments, we'd like to hear City Council's initial thoughts about the site plan. Then when, you know, because of the tight timeline and the desire to keep this, you know, moving and moving forward, we will then either city planner Andrew Thomas or I will actually, since I was here tonight, I will actually present that those comments that you have to the planning board orally. If we have time, we'll actually incorporate those comments into the staff report, going to the planning board. So we will incorporate that into our presentation and the planning board. So just like I stood up here tonight, I'll give a similar presentation on Monday night and then append to that essentially. And here are some of the comments that the City Council had in terms of guidance toward regarding that development plan, so that the planning board can hear that, take that into consideration, and then have them react . So we see this essentially as the kickoff. City Council Planning Board. City Council Planning Board. City Council Planning Board. Throughout this entire process, ultimately the planning board approves that development plan in April incorporating or you know, recommends approves it, the planning board or the dwelling plan and recommends any other documents to city council. And the city council approves the DDA in May or the disposition development agreement. And nothing happens without that disposition development agreement. So the buck really stops at the city council. The city council has all of the all the power in terms of determining what the deal is, what the financial terms are. And so that DDA is really what kind of holds the keys to being able to move forward with this project. Thank you for one last clarifying question. Thank you, Mayor. With regard to the housing, can you explain if there's a density bonus application that is relevant to this project? Or is the project the 800 homes? The project. The 800 homes? Correct. And the city council, essentially through its development agreement, disposition development agreement can it's the city council's land, I mean, or the city's land. And so the city council can essentially create a cap on the 800 units for this project. Now, there may be the need for density. There most likely will be a need for a density bonus application in order to receive a waiver of the multi-family housing prohibition in the municipal code. But no density bonus units are contemplated on top of that 800 800. Okay. So that's very critical with the timeline that we resolve the issues that were brought up at the last meeting. We are on what ordinance says that needs to happen. So that we are very aware of that. And. We'll be discussing that. I think our. Target is for March 3rd to come to you. Any other clarifying questions? All right. And we're going to get to my first speaker will be Kari Thompson, then Angela Hawk about and then Ken Peterson. Thank you for being so patient. Good evening, Madam Mayor. City Council staff. Some of you I saw this morning so I could see you again tonight. My name is Kerry Thompson. I am the immediate past president of the Chamber of Commerce. I am also the current chairperson for the Economic Development, Government Relations and Economic Development Committee for the Chamber. And hopefully at some point in the next couple of months, I will have each of you at one of our meetings so that you can talk with our committee. I would really appreciate that. First of all, I want to thank the staff for all of their time, all of their energy, hard work and dedication to our city . They have been extremely forthcoming with information. They have been very responsive to questions about all of the projects that are currently happening in the city. And I want to recognize them for that and thank them. And especially in regards to site, which is the cornerstone of the development for Alameda Point. Creating a residential community at site A is a critical means to the desired end at Alameda Point. The economics created by housing are the only feasible way to finance parks, amenities and infrastructure in a post redevelopment era. Approximately 75% of the housing at site will be rental. A significant departure from other new developments in alameda. With the island's housing shortage. There is particularly high demand for rental units, mixed use. Communities with the significant arts maker and entrepreneurial cultural are a proven catalyst for successful development. This environment attracts foremost companies that build a more durable and sustainable job, such as right speed that we were at this morning. Site A will create several thousand construction and permanent jobs combined. And I would just like to address Councilmember Desai and point out that we're talking about Alameda as a whole, not just as a West End . I have grown up all over Alameda. I don't just because I currently live on Bay Farm Island identify myself as somebody from Bay Farm Island. And I really think that housing in general, particularly the rental market, is you're going to hear a little bit later is critically important. And I don't think it matters so much as where it is, but that it's available. So I just want to share that. Thank you. Have a difference of agreement opinions here. Next speaker, Angela. I'm sorry, Ken. You're after Angela. Let Angela speak first. Thank you. Sorry. That's okay. Good evening, Madam Speaker, and city council members and staff. As a renter at the Alameda Renters Coalition, we are very excited at the prospect of hundreds of rental units coming on the market in the coming years. We cannot say enough about how few units are on the market right now, not just rental, but available for sale. I think it's nine units or houses that are available for sale. So we're not just talking about renters who will benefit from these houses and rental units. We're talking about people who aren't even able, even with money and resources, to buy a house in Alameda. So these houses, these rental units are vitally important. And in a legal environment where we have no recourse over high rent increases, they represent hope for us in that we could stay in Alameda if more of these units are built. So I appreciate your consideration in studying these these plans. And hopefully, you know, in five years, maybe one of us will be living in one. So thank you very much. Can Peterson. Thank you very much. Comments earlier reminded me of some of the traditional arguments that are put forth in these kinds of situations. I reminded of the forums that we had or put on by Ms.. Ott very capably when we were looking at some of the Sun Kil ideas and in the brochure, which is a beautiful brochure. Councilmember Ashcraft was participating in some of those because I remember we were at the same table and there were pictures of examples of what infrastructure and amenities can be built. With the use of housing development money and that how housing development money was necessary in order for us to have those things. None of the examples were built with housing development money. None of them. They were all built by other means. Now, I think that if you look at this structure and think of it maybe in a different way, there is an approach that might to deal with the questions of of financing, of building the infrastructure, of environment, of transportation and probably another other many other things, a commercial development, possibly raising money for the city, but nobody talks about it. The interesting thing is it has to do with energy and is possible to store energy very in it, very efficiently and economically and I think very profitably as well as being environmentally desirable. If you have energy and energy is cheap, which I believe is possible now, you could have the possibility of supplementing the commercial establishments and the industrial interests places and maybe make this area more inviting. It can also be used to supplement the retail outlets and the housing. Now if you have the energy and it's cheap enough, you could possibly set up a desalination plant up in the west end of the island, and that's desirable from the standpoint of the East Bay mode, which needs the water. And in the process of doing that, they would probably contribute the sewage infrastructure and the supply of electricity and other things in there. The the. The State is very interested in energy storage and mandated in 2010 that the consumer owned utilities establish feasibility studies for this. And so that some of that has been done, but done very poorly. So there's a possibility here that very exciting to take care of all of the issues except the traditional mixed use retail housing approach that you take. Thank you very much. Michael McDonough. Then it'll be Brian Groves and then Casey Sparks. Thank you. It evening, Madame Mayor and council staff. Thanks for having us here tonight. I just want to say that the chamber I'm the Michael McDonald, president of the Chamber of Commerce. And I want to say that the Chamber fully supports this project as well as the developer. You may know that it's been said earlier today that Mr. EARNEST is very is not only a resident here in town, but been very active in producing previous projects that have created hundreds of jobs. And of course, the chamber's interested in jobs, and we're interested in building commercial facilities out on the base as well, like most people are. But it's been proven that through other rescues that the commercial developers do not want to develop Alameda Point because of the infrastructure issues. So I believe that though there may be other ways to to do that, this is the only way that anyone has come up with that has volunteered to come to Alameda to develop our infrastructure. And one thing that bothers me even more is not only attracting those commercial businesses, but keeping the businesses that are already out there because of the deteriorating infrastructure. We've got a lot of great businesses out there that Alameda is enjoy, like Rockwall Winery, Blaydon Sports Club. I think there's 7000 people a day that go to play them. And just a couple of weeks ago, they lost electricity for three days. There's water main break. It's oh, I don't know, several that I've heard about that can take $50,000 a day to repair. These are issues that if we can't get that repaired, we risk losing the businesses that are already out there and the jobs that they provide. So not only are we concerned about bringing more commercial businesses to the point, but keeping the ones that are there through improving that infrastructure and giving them a reason to stay there. If we do not do that, I would imagine ten years from now that the base will be more vacant than it is now and more rundown than it is now, because there won't be the infrastructure to support the businesses that are there currently, much less bringing new businesses out there. So the chamber is fully behind this project and the developer, and we just want to do what we can to support that. Q Brian GROSS. Thank you, Madam Chair. And good evening. And you were very close. My name is Brian Graves, and I come before you tonight to read a letter on behalf of Brad Schuck, co-owner of Palladium. It reads as follows. Dear Mayor Spencer, Alameda City Council. I'm the co-owner operator of Palladium, Sports and Fitness Club at Alameda Point. We moved our business from San Francisco to Alameda over 15 years ago, and I've grown to one of the largest employers at Alameda Point and one of the leading on the island. Our facility hosts thousands of visitors each week and employs over 120 people. We've been proud to operate at Alameda Point and can only continue to do so if significant upgrades come to this part of the island. Saturday promises to be a catalyst for redeveloping the point. We are excited to hear this evening's update the council and see this plan move forward. The proposal for Friday will provide much of much of the infrastructure element a point businesses need to operate. We cannot continue to serve our clients with aging roads and failing internet, phone and other utilities. Say is the minimum needed to provide some economies of scale for the infrastructure development. A bootstrap side by side approach would cost 2 to 3 times as much. Exclamation point. Alameda Point businesses have seen many failed attempts to develop the point. We are encouraged by the city's vision and Alameda Point Partners plan to create a mixed use community that will attract quality companies to build a durable and sustainable jobs. Site promises well-integrated retail and open space amenities, housing and transit. This will attract more companies like Wright Speed. Who's workforce want wants to work where they can live and play alamy the point businesses want to continue to thrive and grow at this location. We support this plan and will work hard to ensure success. Anything less will force us to look at other alternative locations. Sincerely, Brad Schuck, President Blame Sports and Fitness Club. Thank you. Thank you. Casey Sparks. And I'm going to just read the names of the next speakers Ellen Source, Karen Bay and then William Smith. And you can just follow each other. It even. Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Mayor and members of the City Council and City Staff. Thank you for having me speak very briefly. I don't want to repeat the points that have been made earlier, but just briefly, as a way of introduction, I'm not representing any organization. I've been to be a member of the City of Element, a Democratic club, and young Democrats as a board member of each but of the denominator for two years. I'm a millennial, and I think that what is one of the main things that I'm excited about in support of Elemental Point Partners Inside is that I think that this really plans for the future and it's progress for the city of Alameda, for our island, not just for the sake of progress, but because I think it's a major improvement for all the reasons that have been stated. I think that the way that it's been designed for the future is that it takes into account additional housing. So that I think what many people have spoken, their ideal vision for the future is where people can walk to work and take public transit to work. And if you create additional housing on the island in addition to jobs, then people aren't coming from off the island to work here. And conversely, people aren't having to commute off the island from here to work elsewhere, which is another very on paper, simple solution. But I think that as element moves forward into the 21st century, we have to embrace that. We have to embrace that. People are competing differently now. They're not driving everywhere. They are taking transit more. I take the ferry and the bus and go for my work and I think that this is something that being built for the future, being built as a measure of progress that improves across the board the circumstances that are there now, I think that it deserves deserves our full support. And I wanted to offer that as my thought. And I appreciate your time and your consideration. Evening. You've heard bits of history tonight about now made a point. And I just want to give you a slightly different history that pre-dates the ones we've heard in 1993. Mayor Pizarro convened a group of chairs of commissions and citizens at large, and this was to really look at what had happened when the base closed and how we could restore the vitality of the Naval Air Station. The result of our 45 to 50 meetings of almost five years of work was to produce the community reuse plan that reflected what we had heard in the community. What we had heard from the development community and experts in land use of what we might be able to expect here in our island community. The Community Business Use Plan, which I'm sure most of you have read, was to guide and did guide the changes to the city's general plan for incorporating this one third of the island back into the city. Our initials Brag stood for Base Reuse Advisory Group, and we added the tagline of Brag if you live in Alameda because we were quite proud of the potential that Alameda Point offers to the community. So we fast forward to 2014 and I think the city has said exactly the right thing by not taking on a developer to do the development, by breaking and into chunks that are more manageable and more likely to move forward in tandem than one after the other. We'll also offer choices in architecture that will benefit from. And this first development of the Alameda Point site really reflects sea objectives of the rig, is we channel the development ideas that the community told us into the reuse plan. And I really wanted to say that this first development really includes the elements that we wanted, which were a mixture of uses housing for all incomes and produces uses that will help bring back the badly needed vitality that the city lost. This also will have the huge benefit of starting the infrastructure development, which is currently a real detriment to the city and has the potential of being a sinkhole of money. If we don't find someone, that will make a big start to trigger the development out there. So the Alameda Home Team urges your support for this development, and we feel that it will provide many economic and social benefits to the city. Thank you. Thank you, Karen Bay. Mm hmm. It had been Mayor Spencer, members of the council and staff. My name is Karen Bay. I am a 37 plus year member of the community and I'm here tonight to support the development of site A at Alameda Point. Excuse me, if my voice is a little scratchy, I'm getting over the flu. So first thing I wanted to mention is I don't know if you read the article in the San Francisco Business Times, one of the most. Prestigious. Business journals in the Bay Area. And we were on the front page and I'll read the heading. Tesla co-founder Ian Wright opens Alameda Plant to make electric truck powertrains. And I. I read the San Francisco Business Times almost daily and I can't tell you how proud I am to see Alameda on the front page competing in the marketplace for jobs and moving companies, relocating companies to Alameda. It's pretty amazing. And we've been on the front page, I think, in the last couple of months. We've been there at least three times. So Alameda is making a great name for itself and this project is helping us do that. This we are in the middle of a perfect storm. We've got an improving economy. We've got a great location. We've got a dream team. And I've been in the real estate development business for 15 years. I can tell you this is a dream team and we're very fortunate that we are our own master developer. We get to decide, we get to choose and this is a great project. I want to focus on a couple of other really strong strengths. The construction of infrastructure, backbone infrastructure at Site A is going to lay the groundwork to lay the foundation for site B, and that is going to bring in sewer, storm drain. Streetlights, roads. All of the utilities. And it's going to be an a great gateway, by the way. I'm really into gateways. So and I've been looking at this gateway. It's really great. 75% of the residential units are going to be rental and 25% of those are going to be affordable. That speaks volumes to our affordable housing crisis that we're suffering from right now. And we're going to hear from renters tonight. This addresses that issue. And it provides amenities, housing and amenities for businesses that want to relocate and then the ferry terminal. And I'll talk about that next time. But I'm a ten year old ferry terminal writer. So thank you. Thank you. At this point, I have three more slips on this item. William Smith next. That'll be Kurt Petersen and then Barbara Rasmussen. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council members and staff. I'm William Smith, the vice president of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. And as Helen has mentioned, the planning element of points been going on for a while and renewed hope was founded over 15 years ago. And we were our major reason was to help get housing out of the Naval Air Station. So we're delighted to see that we've got a valid proposal that looks like it's going to go forward. So we're definitely very supportive of it. One of our first things that we did when we formed as a rent hopping organization was we tried to protect and get East housing converted into affordable housing. Back at that time. We didn't succeed there. There's a nice development there now, but it didn't have nearly the amount of affordable housing we thought we'd get in affordable housing . The rest of the base within a few years. Well, few years has turned into a decade now or something like that. So we think it's time for this housing to go to go forward. And a couple other points I wanted to make in terms of your point where there are 25% affordable housing, is is a maximum. No, it's not. It's a minimum. So the city could definitely go higher than that and a percentage out there. But we need to do some things about it to be very creative and very innovative. It's not going to be easy. And one of the things we need to do is really get a bang up transportation plan, because if we get people have that, we need to get more qualify for more very, very competitive, affordable housing grants. For that, we need to have a really world class transportation plan out there. We also need to have business, businesses, retail and shopping where people can get close to the work. We need to have schools, so there's a lot of things we have to work together. And books is delighted that we feel the sense that the business community, the environmental community and the affordable housing community and other communities in Alameda are coming together, the realtors, to to get behind this project and to finally get something started out there at Alameda Point. Thank you. I promise this be the last time tonight I get in. Kurt Petersen, thank you again for allowing me to address you on this topic as well. One of the things that really kind of concerns me on this whole project, and it did at the very moment that the city council approved as far as Alameda Point Partners, as the exclusive developer for it was one of the claimed pains for the developing portion of this tax credit as far as we're Emeryville. Okay. At the Powell Street, I-80 area. Okay. I don't know if most of you probably gone there. Thank you. I noticed right off the bat, congestion and traffic is an outrageous problem in Emeryville. So again, it falls under the concern that I have as far as development and making sure that traffic is set up properly. Also, I want to mention real quickly up here, if you're going to show us some illustrations like this, you need to get the jet in the correct area because that's not where it's at. It's definitely south of there. So if you're going to give us the illusion that that's the straight view in from our Basato Parkway, that is not because it runs south of where the seaplane lagoon is. So if they're going to present something to you, it should be accurate. Okay. The other situation. They mentioned several things, and I'll try to do it real quickly. The Dredging Seaplane Lagoon. Okay. Since when I first joined the RAB, one of the things that got postponed time and time again was the clean up the seaplane lagoon. It wasn't until the last three years they said, Gosh, we don't know what to do with this horrible site. Then three years ago, the Navy said, Oh, we'll simply dredge it. It'll take care of everything. Okay. Well, you have radioactive material that's come down in both corners. Okay. They did do dredging. They're still implying that there still could be some radioactive materials in the water, especially in the corners. They're talking about dredging it, which could interrupt and disturb that material. ST $10 million. That's great. Got to look at it more carefully. Could be a lot more than that. We're talking millions that the Navy has used to clean up. This is what I was talking about. Open up a can of worms that can come back and bite us all. I don't think we want to do that. We want a beautiful place out there. Not an outrageous expense for myself and the rest of the city. Alameda. The other thing is I couldn't help but also notice these beautiful little islands that are down over on the sea plain lagoon side. That's also area that they found some radioactive material in that park section. So, again, I don't know what they slated as far as clean up of that could be a lot more than they are aware of. And also, I thought it was going to be a lot more as far as industrial or commercial, lot less housing, tons of housing, housing costs, money, as everybody knows, inner structure wise. Thank you. Thank you. So next to be Barbara and then John Spangler. And then I think we're finished with our public speakers. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the Council. Staff. Happy New Year. Looking at this, I did not intend to speak. But in looking at this, we have a maximum of 800 units currently in this phase plan for housing. My question is, where are these children going to go to school? I'm sure there are going to be some children there. Do we have a plan in any of this for where they're going to go to school? Thank you. John Spangler. Thank you very much, mayor spencer. By Syrian Motor City members of the council and staff. I've been to a lot of meetings, that element of point since Lynn and I moved here in 1997. I'm really pleased with the Alameda Point Partners proposal. Overall, obviously, not all the details are in yet. We don't have as got some everyday sug mentioned housing prices and a lot of other things and finding schools is important too. But I like the direction of this. I like the re-use of existing buildings. I like the fact that the housing will be compacted so that it will be more transit friendly. And as Bill Smith mentioned a few minutes ago, transportation is the key and element of point. And we can make it work with the connections we have on and off island. We will have to change our habits, but that's not impossible. We have all learned to not smoke in as many places as we used to drive smaller cars than my parents drove. And otherwise do things differently and we can continue to do that. So I hope this proposal will keep moving forward. And we're going to see some more good news at the next update. Thank you very much. Thank you. Right. And we're comments. Matt Amir. Yes. Good to hear. For some clarification for a couple of I think major points that were raised on the I know is Mr. Russell still here? Not the missile is not capable. But can you can you talk to the sea plane, lagoon dredging issue? Sure. As to the the Navy has they did performed quite a bit of dredging in those two corners that you saw in the presentation before. And significant cubic yards of sediment was removed. It was actually spread out on these drying beds, dried, scanned for for radioactive material and then disposed of appropriately. And so the Navy has clean up those two corners, which were the concentrations of the contamination. And, you know, as I think Peter Russell said earlier, that indications are they haven't you know, the the bow isn't on this yet and not everyone's signed off entirely. But that that those areas are have been sufficiently cleaned up to the standards that were were expected. Um, as we move forward, there are these kind of light fixtures and other things that, that they found that are sparsely about for per acre, for instance. And not so much light fixtures, but light switches like that. Which is that had residual luminescent paint on them. And so those as we move forward, the institutional control most likely for site 17, which is a Sea Plan Lagoon and this is all still being worked out to a certain degree will be will say that the dredging has to have a sediment management plan. So just like we have for the rest of the site, here's how we're going to dispose of the sediment because of these like these little devices or kind of light switches. And so that sediment management plan will contemplate essentially the same process we believe that the Navy did, which is dry the sediment, scan it, and then dispose of the spoils appropriately. And so, for instance, when we're looking at the ferry terminal, we will have to we don't we are hopeful. And we've actually had a marine engineer look at the the topography and our what you say the bathymetry. It's called of the Sea Plane Lagoon. We did a scan recently in October that found that most likely with this ferry terminal, we won't have to do any dredging. But if we do do some dredging, we will have to go through this. It'll probably be very minimal and we'll have to go through the same process that the Navy did in terms of disposing of that sediment. And then when other question or did you ask a question on this topic? Because I was going to hop to another topic. I just had a note. Ever brought a comment. Okay. Okay. And if you can, I know this is beyond the scope of CIDA, but I also know that there is some school district property out in Alameda Point. But can you speak to the question that was raised to where do the children go to square with children who live there, go to school? Yes. So there are a couple of things. I mean, we will we have been and will continue to be in dialog with the school district as we go through these open houses, will be doing stakeholder meetings and the school district will be one of the stakeholder holders that we will meet with to discuss this plan. We've been doing that for the last 24, 24 months, going through the entitlement period, met a number of occasions with the school district staff. We will also the developer will be required to pay capital fees for to the state as part of their project to fund construction of new schools. This there is a 20 acre site that's currently owned by the school district that could be the site of a new school if the school district decided to pursue that. And we have looked at our environmental impact report at impacts to schools and the availability in the different schools around Alameda Point. And so, you know, whether or not there's room at Ruby Bridges or we'll be looking at that and working with the school district to discuss that and address that issue. Thank you. So at this point, members can make comments of actually, did you want to make comments or you on here for me to do but I'll I'd love to hear from my colleagues thank you. Okay. So you can go ahead. Remember in your presentation. Thank you. By the way, was excellent presentation. You mentioned that there was a team that was completed and then I heard one or two comments from the public that were putting the cart before the horse. So can you explain to me, are we doing that? And if we're not, then maybe you can explain to the public. So they have the benefit of of your knowledge on why we're not sure. Absolutely. I do not think we're putting the cart before the horse. I think we before any develop or similar to the zoning to the master infrastructure plan, we decided we didn't want each developer to come in and propose their own team plan, although we do have something that I'll discuss. But what we wanted was a team plan that looked at the entire base. So Transportation Department manager plan was all that means is how do we make sure, how do we get people out of their cars, out of there and onto transit and using other modes of transportation, incentivizing people to walk to work, other things like bike to work, take transit to work. How do you do that? What's the way to address that? And this plan does that. It looks at all of Alameda point. It's very detailed. It actually has a cost to the budget related to all the different programs and incentive incentive programs, transit programs that that are contemplated for Alameda point. And it actually requires every developer that comes in including the city developer and they're working on theirs right now I know because I've talked to them about it is a transportation demand management compliant strategy. So every developer so come in and tell us how they're going to comply with our overarching team plan. And that doesn't just mean check a box here or there, it means telling us in very detail how how are they going to fund some of these things? How are we going to address these issues, what programs are going to get implemented and when? And those programs, just to be clear, are our shuttles. I could be trained, it could be transit with AC transit. But if AC transit, you know, there are some comments made. I've seen, you know, if AC transit doesn't step up to the plate, then private shuttles are going to be there to provide the service. There's going to be direct, fast, convenient service from Alameda Point to 12th Street, BART, within the first 100 units, if not sooner of development out there. So that's part of it. Free bus passes for all employees and all residents at Alameda Point and car share, bike share facilities, all kinds of programs, van pool, ride sharing programs, all kinds of other programs. We have, in fact, have a grant from MTC $150,000 grant for over three years to hire some of the best transportation consultants that specialize in setting these programs up. It's actually the woman that set up the emery go round in Emeryville, which is extremely successful. She'll be working as a contractor for us, paid for by MTC to help us implement this plan over the next three years. Holding our hands, holding developers hand, making sure that every development has a good plan for addressing these issues. And it does it successfully and in a way that was going to, you know, make sure that people use transit. Another approach, honestly, and it was it was interesting to hear one of the speakers that said their millennium is to attract the right type of people to the site not and to make sure that that the development is created in a way that attracts the type of people that don't use cars or you only have one car. And so that's an important part of this. And one of the ways you do that is having convenient transit shuttles, other services there from the moment they move in, sort of wait four or five years and then implement some of these programs. Well, then you've already sold homes or you already rented homes to people that obviously don't use transit because they bought a home here where there wasn't any. And so the important piece of this is creating those day one strategies or having fast, convenient service shuttle programs, bus pass, free bus passes from day one. And every property owner is going to have to pay into that to fund operations so that you have a dedicated funding source for paying for those things, so that if someone if they say, hey, I'm not going to pay this special tax to to pay for transportation, I'd like to drive I'm not going to pay for that if I'm not going to use those services. So the intent is to really attract people that really want to live in a community that uses transit. And what we've heard from some of the consultants that we talked to, transportation consultants, there are very few jurisdictions around here that are actually requiring developers to pay for operations of transportation. It's one thing that they do, you know, infrastructure districts, CFDs, to pay for infrastructure or municipal services, police and fire, but actually require developers to pay for operations. The transportation services is actually very cutting edge. It's not being done in Oakland. It's not being done in Berkeley. So we're we've got a lot of really great, very detailed plans. And I'm going to point to plan. And every developer, including this one, is going to have to tell us how they're complying with that. And that will be part of the package that comes to the planning board, comes to the council, and will ultimately have to be approved by this council. So it's going to have to stand up to it, to your standards as well. Thank you. Comments from council members. The Mayor of a couple of comments. Um, first is probably the easiest one. Um. The people made mention of Gateway to this project. That being the east gate and the gate is gone, but the plane is there. And I'm hoping my colleagues would support retaining the ellipse in which the plane sits, because there are three planes that remind us of the base and Snow High School, Main Street Gate and the East Gate. So that's just my opinion. I think it makes a fine entrance and I would like to see that he lifts. And though we may not have been a medieval fortress, it does evoke the pattern of the base. And I think that's relatively easy. But tying in the more difficult issues, and I think we did it was made mentioned that we learned with buying insurance for remediation that wasn't caught by the sampling in the Navy. And all the agencies have done a great job in sampling and in removing. But sampling is sampling. It's not 100%. And when the backhoes start digging, there may be something found. I want to make sure that in our agreements that the city is not held liable. And as a as an edge to that or a tangent to that is when do the ferry be put in the seaplane lagoon? There will be dredging needed. Because it's not static. It's like all the marinas and shorelines of the city. There will be periodic dredging needed and has to be explored and handled, particularly with the radium issue. Radioactivity is radium paint. I think that needs to be ensured and or anticipated in the course of operations as well as the cost of putting that installation there. Also related to that, there are there are hundreds of feet, if not. A few miles of storm sewer that were exposed to the dumping of radioactive paint. If I remember this, Peter Russell O'Hare, if I remember the meetings when this was first discovered actually quite by accident. Those. I think we need to either make sure we insure or somehow transfer liability to to the new owners. And I'd rather insure it then and and disclose and insure rather than and just hand off liability to somebody else. And then lastly, on the transportation and this would be. Part of that direction to the planning board as well as the Transportation Commission is. Please look at this project. In the envelope of and I know we talk about east and west, and the fact is there's a tube and there's a ferry terminal now. And we need to look at the load on that and and looking at it as a whole with the development. It's already in our general plan. And this is not in in. And that infrastructure. When we look at the northern waterfront with a housing element, only 245 units. Of. That's in our our housing element. And this is not yet and we have to resolve basically that load. When we look at this particular project. Those are my comments. I think that transit plan is. As if they're going to be houses there. That's that's absolutely. The other member, De Sung. Thank you very much. Mayor Spencer. You know, there's a variety of ways that we need to look at this project. But Chief and foremost, this is what's before us as a council on behalf of the residents. This is a business deal that we're going to make. And in the context of that business deal, one major context is we have to make sure that of the 550 to $600 million in infrastructure cost or all of the base that parcel a make sure that it pays for its share of that overall 550 to $600 million in infrastructure cost. So in order for it to meet its share, we have to have a clear understanding of what are the fiscal impacts of having whatever arrangement of housing that you have in mind, whether it's 25% homeownership and 75% ownership, or whether it's some other percentage, 50, 50 or 75, 25 the other way because the way in which the the tenure is established might have consequences with regard to how we treat those long term obligations that's going to be associated with the 550 to $600 million. So that's understanding the fiscal impacts in terms of treating Parcel A's share of the overall infrastructure plan. So we need to make sure to understand that the second fiscal impact we need to understand are certainly the services related to ongoing services related to the different tenure and arrangements. So we're going to need to understand on the on the revenue side, you know, how how much in property taxes and how many how much in property taxes? How much in in property transfer taxes? How much in sales taxes are generated under one scenario, whether it's 25% ownership with a 75% apprenticeship versus another scenario, what are the property taxes, transfer taxes, etc., that's generated under, say, a 50% ownership versus a 50% ownership scenario has on the fiscal side, we need to understand how those revenues play out relative to whatever costs, municipal costs are associated with it. When we talk about the municipal service district, for example, you know, the residents in Bayport are paying a MSD of roughly $1,000 a year. I mean, you know how you can put on top of the market rent a municipal service district? As well as other fees. I can put that on and still have a workable project that's 75% rental. I don't know. I'd have to see the details of how that that it's possible. So. We have a serious housing situation, there is no doubt. And it's happened here. Right now in Alameda. When we plan alameda point, especially starting with parcel a while, we certainly don't want to forget the housing crisis that we're dealing with. We also have to make long term decisions for, well, decision for the long term. And when it comes to looking at the housing tenure, I think that's important. For example, one can conceivably argue that if you had a different housing tenure arrangement. Hypothetical 50% ran or 50% townhouses in condo for sale townhouses and condos. One could conceivably argue that young adults can move into the townhouse, can start by living in the apartments and transition into the condos and townhouses once they build up their their down payment. And then as they build up equity in those multifamily units, perhaps then move into historic Alameda. So we need to look at the housing as a set of flow of services over time that deals with the the evolving needs of the residents. We can't just respond to, as important as it is, the housing crisis that we're dealing with right now in 2015. So there are. So there's a range of information that on the business deal slash fiscal side that I'm certainly interested in looking at. In general, I believe that the process established by city manager John Russo, starting when I started in January 2013, at that time he outlined a vision of how that different things are going to happen , how we're going to take we're going to do the master infrastructure plan, how we're going to go about doing the zoning, how we're going to go about doing the waterfront so that we can land, put all our ducks in a row so that we're in a position to find the developer. So I can't say enough. Kudos to the city manager Russo's approach to this that he started and that he implemented to a tee. And it's important to say because that it was in stark contrast to the two failed attempts where we tried to do everything at once. So we learned our lesson out of that process. I do believe that SRM is the right choice as the developer. So let me let me make sure to say that I like their vision in terms of the retail side, looking at, you know, ways to tap into the creative the emerging creative economy, things like, you know, people who who who create things using 3D printers that they can then sell and then generate a sales tax as a result. So making sure to have the retail space or commercial space to accommodate that growing sector. But I will say, though, on the residential side. And let me make sure to say that there are there are no deal killers here. But there are certainly. From my vantage point, I mean, I do think that we have serious concerns about the 2570 5% ratio. I suspect. It might not even pencil out, you know? I mean, we'll have to look and look at the details to see how it does. And from the backdrop, you know, like I said before, the west end of town has a 70% ownership rate. For the longest time, the west end of town has seen Alameda Point as creating a sense of stability. Much needed. I mean, think about it. Think about all the schools that closed in the west end of town. And the closed schools didn't close in the east end of town or the or the central part of town. And all you had Longfellow clothes, you had shipping clothes, and then you had the you know, they were converted to something where you had Woodstock close. I mean, there has been a tremendous amount of social instability in the west end of town. And I am looking in this project much in the way that I looked at Bayport at that time in 1999. 24 hours, a stabilizing force, not just for Alameda in general, but particularly the west end of town. And I and I say that unapologetically. So I think there are some I think we've made great strides. I think we're building off the work that was put in place and especially the town planning that. So I'm put together and the presentation in terms of the built environment done by the SRM and their partners tonight falls within that. There are some things that I. In terms of the built environment I'd certainly like to look at even more particularly. I mean, I am interested in the quality of the building designs. I encourage people to look at the town center plan because there's a whole section in there that that really discusses thoroughly our expectations. So the planning board in that regard I think did a great job and it looks like the SRM is definitely following through on it. But there are some tweaks in here that that in terms of the design and built environment that I'm interested in. But the fiscal impacts with regard to dealing with the long term obligations as well as the fiscal impacts with regard to dealing with ongoing municipal services, certainly are also issues as well as obviously transportation. I'll try to be brief, but I do want to thank the presenters for the presentation. I think it's an exciting project and I'm I'm kind of excited that we're going to have the opportunity to move forward with this after after decades of planning and decades of talking about it. So somebody said it's a priority project. I think it's a critical project. We heard from the owner of Palladium on the infrastructure issues that are out there. At the point this morning I was on the phone with one of the other tenants out there and they explained to me how they they have intermittent problems with water supply . When they have their sewage, they have to put it into a truck and then have the truck drive over and dump their sewage into a sewer. So if we really want to protect and save the businesses that we have out there, let alone attract more like right speed and others, then I think this is a critical project to keep moving forward. So when I lived on on Bay Farm, I had the opportunity to work with, with with Joe Ernst and SRM because we lived in the neighboring development. And, you know, I found him to be very open, very accessible and very amenable to changes and suggestions from the community. So I encourage the public as we go through, we have four more council meetings, we have planning board meetings, we have historical advisory board meetings. I encourage folks to to go talk to Joe, work with the developers. If if you have issues with the designs, if you have issues with the Ellipse, whether you think it should be there or not be there, talk to them. And I think you'll find a very amenable and very easy to work with. And I think in the end we'll have a project that the community will not only have input in, but we'll be proud of because it'll be our project. I'm not going to go into the extensive comments that Councilmember Daisuke made, but I do want to say that I, I agree with a lot of the concerns he's raised about the the rental owner owner occupied ratio. So I think as we go forward, I'd be interested in hearing more about that and I'd be interested in having the public provide a lot more input on this. But I'm really excited about this. And just one positive point to the reuse. I think that that's a positive part that I think we should continue to do. And I thought somebody said possible reuse, but I hope we can do more definite reuse instead of possible reuse. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you to all of our presenters and all of you speakers too. I take copious notes and read them back and it helps inform me. This morning, as I mentioned earlier, I did attend the press event for the opening of the right speed manufacture. This is one of the founders of Tesla motors, has spun off his own company that manufactures these electric drive trains that run motors for trucks, basically to help clean up our environment, because these are especially short haul vehicles like all the garbage trucks that service Marin County in the North Bay Counties. FedEx is starting to use them and they're picking up and moving from San Jose, doubling their workforce and coming to Alameda. And I was struck by a comment our city manager, John Russo, made when he was addressing us this morning. He called it Back to the Future. And I mean, when you looked at what right speed is is doing, but also back to the future, we're bringing back to Alameda Point what was once there. And of course, I do mean in the nice history that was presented through all these wars and conflicts from World War Two through Korea, through Vietnam, the Alameda Point was the Naval Air Station when I was growing up here was both home and business and a work environment. I had friends who lived out there and there were jobs, there were houses, there was retail, the commissary. And I remember the gas station because like I said, I went sometimes with my friend's parents when they go shopping, I'm in the commissary and we're getting back to that. But in a much improved way. That and something I remembered. Helen Sise mentioned this in her remarks in the earlier talks about what the community wanted to see for Alameda Point. They wanted connectivity, they wanted continuity because what I remembered about going to the naval base was it was always a little intimidating for me anyway because you always had to go past the guard post and there was a guard and I don't know if that rifle was loaded or not, but we but what they wanted was streets that went all the way through that invited the public in because after all, this is now our city. It used to be federal property. Some of it still is, but most of it has now been conveyed to the city. So what I saw in the and the plans that were presented. Nice job, David. Israel was a well thought out, well designed, exciting, eclectic mix of jobs, creation, retail, residential, open space. I love that I mentioned. I love the three different types of park spaces that are there and that will connect to each other. And it did bring to mind for me Granville Island in Vancouver, B.C. My dad was Canadian, he was from Vancouver, and I know Granville Island. Well, you get there by water. Taxi. I'm and it also reminded me of what the High Line Park in New York has become. If any of you have walked that amazing, amazingly converted space in the former meatpacking district above the you know, it's it's a former railroad elevated roadway. But they reclaimed this area that was derelict. It was a place that were, you know, criminal elements. You didn't go there ever unless you were transacting something nefarious. But now it is amazing. It's well used. It has increased the property values of all the places around it. And we have all that opportunity here. It's a great opportunity. It's a great opportunity for this council. We have a new council. It's a new year and I think we're starting out with a bang. But on a more sober note and Councilmember Odie mentioned this, we did here tonight, we got a letter from radium from the owner of Radium Palladium, Brad Shook. And then when we heard this item in December, we had a letter from yet another business owner whose water and telephone lines had been out for days. How do you run a business when you have that sort of thing happening, let alone how do you attract new businesses? But now we have SRM Ernst in the team they've put together. It's laid out in these plans of what they're putting into the infrastructure. They're paying their fair share. And then some as well as I mean, another lovely amenity is $5 million for a $20 million recreational center that we've long wanted. But anyway, there's there's lots to be done. Mozart has laid out an ambitious schedule for us on the council for other boards and commissions. And you, the public, please come out, you and the audience, you who are watching come out, attendees, open houses go on the walk the bike ride a year ago was amazing and get involved . And at the same time, for me anyway, I feel I truly believe we picked the right development partners. They know what they're doing. They have experts. That's not to say that we won't give them input and we won't give them guidance. I don't feel the need to micromanage every step of the way because we pick them to make good decisions for us. But at this point in time, I would just say, let's all use our best efforts, get together, get behind this very exciting prospect for a city that really has involved so many people. From all you dedicated volunteers on the RAB who've been making sure that the cleanup is going as it should to all the boards, commissions, our city staff. Jennifer Ord I was thinking about this the other night. We would be lost without you. She is just a fountain of knowledge and an understanding about the most technical details and and never thinks any of my questions are dumb. But anyway, I. I'm really excited about this. I want to get in there and roll up my sleeves and work with with the rest of you, because I think we have a great opportunity for Alameda in front of us. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm going to say my comments at this point. First of all, I want to thank the community for coming out and sharing your concerns. I want to thank Steph as well as the developer for doing their presentation. And I appreciate the comments from my my fellow council members. I have. In regards to the jet, I actually support as much of a historical anything historical out there that we can protect. I personally like the circles. I like the Jets. I like the names of the roads as much as we can protect. I think it's actually what is unique about Alameda. So as much as we can do on that, I do support you, the Hornet and the the jet in regards to these depictions. I think it's very important that what is depicted be accurate. So I would appreciate that these drawings be corrected. And and the presentation actually is different from the sequence that was presented online, if that could also be corrected online. My concerns and some of these I personally prefer and I know that this is maybe get into the details, but I prefer and I think that you may be a lead developer as much green as possible reuse of materials is I do I like the natural looks of some of these drawings look to me I'm not sure what materials were being used, but if we can reuse materials, I think as much as possible. Okay. I have concerns about the transportation and I'm hoping that we'll see more information of what that's actually going to look like and the impact, the cumulative impact across the city with all of the current developments that are already online as well as this additional. But that's really going to look like for the impact. The cumulative impact from adding this project to the traffic through the tube. What will that look like in regards to and I appreciate that we're we will be encouraging bus transportation, having shuttles and things like that. And maybe our latest company out there can help us be more green on how to do that. I think that that would be great if we could utilize like a shuttle or something. I'm not sure. But try and keeping in mind that we have a goal as a region to reduce the impact as a state, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2030. I'm one I really want to know how this can how we are supporting that safety day. There was a letter to the editor recently, and I appreciate whomever wrote it in regards to day to day safety that that the again, the cumulative impact of another development, whether including housing and jobs, resulting in more traffic actually across the island and looking at that. Safety during an emergency. I would like us to know again how we will be evacuating, how we will be addressing a natural disaster. This to me, this is an we will be having more people over there shopping and working, living here. The cumulative impact. The skill analysis I would like to see. So I know we discussed some numbers, but we need a budget for the entire project and and its impact on our services long term. The city services. How we're going to preserve the services long term. In regards to the ratio of the 75% apartments and then the 25% affordable housing. Now, that's not the breakdown. I'd like to see the breakdown of what we're actually talking about. Or are we talking about all the apartments for the below market rate housing? Is that a combination? Where is the 25% below market rate housing from the 75 with the 75% apartments? And then what is the range of those apartments? And as much as I appreciate that we have an issue with rents increasing in this town. When I look at the picture and I'll be looking for staff also to clarify what this looks like, as far as I can discern, the city's ability to control the housing price is through below market rate housing that apartments. Unless somehow they are that below market rate housing can be out of reach for many current aluminum quote unquote market rate. And who will the landlord be? This is city property. If the will this be privately held? In which case I don't know how the city will have any controls over market rate housing. I mean, especially apartments. And when people can buy an entry level, an entry home, at least they have something that they know what the payment will be. And what we're seeing right now is the payments are escalating to uncertain levels. And I think. So I'd I'd like to know how we can big picture look at this as a city. Another concern of mine is that when we have private developers that use private property to develop, then we are limited as a city in regards to the percentage of affordable housing, whether it be or seniors or whatnot. But this is city property and that is my understanding where the city has actually the say of what type of housing and what we want this to look like. Madam Mayor, I have a question on what you just stated. Yes, my understanding is that properties can be conveyed to become to the from city owned property, to be private property, and they'll develop that against our standards that are laid out. So it's not going to be city property, it's going to be acquired, if I understand it. Can this be verified that I understand this correctly? That this will be city transfer of public property to a private individual. Correct. To develop against the standards that are laid out by the plan. Correct. Right. To a private company or development. And is going from public to private land. Right. Except for the public right away. We will essentially transfer the property to them. They're going to build our infrastructure. Then they'll transfer the public right of ways back to us. So. So there will be portions that will come back to us once they're improved. But the majority that. Private parts. Might not be under private. EMS. Not. But they will. Be required to develop the property in accordance with the disposition development agreement. And they will be subject to those terms. And so. So if I may just go for it jumps out of my head is that these pictures and the the plans and and the deliverables basically are exciting to look at it. And but they all have impacts. And are we going to get a briefing on the finances that are going to be hammered out in the development agreement ? Because in past experience, the pictures are pretty. But the deal and I think council member de Saag hit the nail on the head is the word penciled? I haven't heard once in the presentation and that's usually what that's what killed the first two deals. Is that the promised in pencil? Mm hmm. And there are other can other conditions that the city might have when when when private land, a public land becomes private land. And what are the things do we want? Project labor agreements, prevailing wage, sustainable systems that provide that transportation of because there's no free bus passes because someone pays for them and it's the owner that's going to pay for the transportation, not the potentially not the developer, unless the developer remains as the owner. So all those financial type questions. I'm hoping we get another another briefing where we put the pictures aside and talk about the money. Yes. I can do that. I mean, I think the question is really I mean, for instance, we did a fiscal impact analysis as part of our previous internal efforts. We are in the process of updating that fiscal model for this project. So we'll be looking at that and not just at build out, but over time so that we can see are there initial years before a lot of development has occurred where there might be greater impacts because you don't have the revenue yet from development to cover some of your expenses. Also, what are we looking at over a certain number of years to make till we get to build out of the projects so that you can see the full impact of the project from a municipal services standpoint. We'll look at that. We can, you know, with that model, we can test some of the impacts of the ten year mix. So we can look at that and we can and we can brief you on those results. But that's absolutely part of it because there is a fiscal neutrality policy that the city has, that this project has to be fiscally neutral in the city's municipal general fund budget. And we, our staff, take that very seriously. And we need to actually be we want to prove to ourselves and to you and to the community that this, in fact, will be fiscally neutral. And so we are analyzing that now. And then the question of I think you you're getting at is, you know, you pay for all these different things with special taxes from property owners. And there is kind of a limit as to how much you can burden property owners with that they're going to be willing to pay. And so we need to make sure and we're doing this analysis as well, is that there's enough, you know, burden or enough you know, there's enough room to pay for all these this these things within kind of where we think the market dictates property owners would be willing to pay. So we're analyzing that as well. Some of the financial questions and policy direction may come to the council in closed session under real property negotiations and many other pieces of it that come in open session. We'll have to talk with our developers and and with the city attorney's office. But if their price in terms of payment, you know, we want to protect the city's best interests in terms of negotiating. We don't actually want to negotiate in public with the developer. So there may be aspects that come to you in closed session. We haven't determined that, but we can come back to you in one form or another with with updates to about the fiscal impact analysis and about the final financing plan, which is, I think what you what you're asking about. But those are all analyzes that we're doing. So sorry. Let me continue, please, regarding the fiscal impact, not just at that site, but cumulative, because people these people will be driving on the road, for instance, Webster to how are we going to address when are the wear and tear on our streets the necessity for more services whether it be fireplace things like that to. So. Yes, go ahead. Just flesh out a little bit more detail in terms of, you know, what I mean by the fiscal consequences of of, you know, having. Very low rate of ownership. I mean, when you look at owner occupied properties among the range of revenues, property tax revenue, you know, or revenues that could be generated, you've got the property tax . And to the extent that the owner occupied units are resold and therefore reassessed upwards, then over time one unit will generate even more property taxes, even if we use the same 1% ad valorem plus all the other add ons. So in addition to that. When you have these owner occupied, they're sold and resold and that generates another stream of property taxes, all the real estate transfer tax. So in these a variety of revenues we're contemplating, I think, towards paying for a parcel, a share of the overall 550 to $600 million in infrastructure, as well as contemplate towards paying for municipal services. Now, on on the when you have a property that's 75% of which is rental, that, you know, I really doubt that the rental property is going to be sold and resold at an any extensive rate. Therefore, generating the same kind of trigger as the property tax trigger or the or the. And so so that's a little bit more fixed. And then to make the compounded, I, you know, I wonder to what extent you can add on fees to rental properties to recover some of the things that we've discussed about. So those are the fiscal. Yeah, I wrote those things down. So I've heard you loud and clear. And we will be talking with the developer about that ten year mix and looking at the sensitivity and impacts that ten year mix ratio project. So I we will that'll be something we'll report back to you on. And I'd like to see currently the type of housing that we already have. And it could be citywide, it could be just the new housing however you want, you know, just so that we have information. And then if you add the apartments and townhomes or whatever these are, the ideas are so that we can look at big picture of what what the different types of housing that's online that isn't out there right now. And then overall, what our city will look like and I am concerned about having 75% of apartments. I think I don't know how you will address the rate rising rent issue and how people will be able to come here and be able to settle. So so I would like to look at that. And also, I'm interested in looking at a higher percentage of affordable housing. It was great. Thank you very much. Any other comments? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thanks mainly. A next item. Is a6g public hearing to identify housing and community development needs for the Community Development BLOCK Grant annual five year plans and improve the Community Needs Statement, as recommended by the Social Service Human Relations Board. Good evening. My name is Claudio Young and I'm with the Housing Authority. I'm the Housing Community Development Program Manager. So what is CDBG, CDBG as an entitlement jurisdiction? We receive community development block grant funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These funds are currently used for residential rehab, which you heard my colleague Miriam talk about earlier.