Loading...
2000-09-19 ARRA MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, September 19, 2000 ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ralph Appezzato, Mayor City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Councilmember, City of Alameda Albert DeWitt, Councilmember, City of Alameda Beverly Johnson, Councilmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Councilmember, City of Alameda 1. ACTION ITEMS 3-B_ 1 -A. Report from the Development Services Director recommending that the ARRA Governing Body approve the disposition strategy of engaging a Master Developer for Alameda Point and to authorize staff to proceed with the selection process for such a Developer. The public hearing was opened. Gary McAfee, Alameda Historic Complex (AHC) stated that the Master Developer process will not create employment. This effort is jeopardizing the economy of the Bay Area. Mr. McAfee requested that the Board accept AHC as a potential developer as the Board goes through individual developer selection process. Vince Mackel, Stay and Play in Alameda stated they have proposed a golf resort facility at Alameda Point. It was also recommended that a Master Plan be developed prior to the golf resort. The whole site should be planned as one unit. In the last four years, the City has given away approximately $200 million to the wildlife people and has not recovered anything in return. The Base is worth approximately $1.5 billion dollars of tax payer money. The City is now trying to acquire a Master Developer, while there is no master plan. A master plan needs to be developed by the City so when the City pursues a Master Developer, there is a set of criteria in place in which the City is in agreement with and can go forward. Chair Appezzato stated he is not aware of a $200 million loss to the City. Many of the decisions by the City regarding the National Wildlife Refuge are part of the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife laws, which takes some precedence over the City's decisions. The most difficult laws of the country are the protection of endangered species. Over the years, the Council has worked in compliance of the Federal laws and diligently with the Fish and Wildlife group, which gives the City 565 acres of dry land and open space and 300 acres of wetlands. The City did not give the Fish and Wildlife group $200 million. Hugh McKay, Stay and Play in Alameda stated his concerns are that the general public are not aware of what is going on at the Naval Air Station. There is no master plan, only a Community - 1 - Reuse Plan which is a draft and very confusing. Not many people have seen the Reuse Plan and are not aware of what is going on with Alameda Point. There has to be a way to get this information to the public. Peggy Doherty, 752 Taylor Avenue expressed her support of a Master Developer for Alameda Point. Ms. Doherty stated she has not seen anything that lists alternatives other than a Master Developer and she is interested in knowing what those pros and cons are. The public has not had much of an opportunity to read up on anything. According to the timetables in the staff reports, it does not appear that the public will have much opportunity to influence the content of an RFQ, not to mention a Master Developer. In significant projects such as a Master Developer selection, prevailing wages, responsible bidding, safety requirements and training should be part of the criteria in the selection process. Public Project Labor Agreement is a concept that has been used successfiilly in the Port of Oakland and the current work that is going on at the San Francisco Airport. These agreements provide a great deal of stability for both workers and employers and are helpfid in preventing work stoppages. Ms. Doherty expressed that these options should be considered by staff and the ARRA Governing Board when they consider the selection process and Master Developer. William Smith, 2822 Bayview Drive stated he is neutral on the Master Developer process. Mr. Smith is a long time member of the Sierra Club and could not accept the previous comments made about the Fish and Wildlife Refiige. Many people in the City are enthusiastic about the Wildlife Refiige and have worked very hard to see it through successfid completion. The master plan is a problem in the City due to difficulties in the planning process. Jobs and housing are hard to balance and the City is behind on its General Plan as well as a master plan, including the Kaufman and Broad and Tinker Avenue projects. Mr. Smith encouraged the Board to work hard on the planning process for the entire City. Diane Lichtenstein, Vice -chair of the APAC stated the community has had ten (10) general community meetings, including the BRAG and ARRA meetings. There was a lot of first page publicity in the Alameda Journal. Anyone in the City who had an interest, had the opportunity to find out what was going on. Since 1996, the planning for the implementation has not evolved much activity, which is now beginning. Nothing has been going on except at FISC and new issues are now surfacing. Ms. Lichtenstein stated that APAC is in favor of a Master Developer as long as the community is kept informed every step of the process and selection. One of the APAC's recommendations is that all efforts should be made to reach out to local employee professionals, developers, business and laborers in all capacities of the entire process. The City should be carefiil to exercise strong oversight on all phases, so that the citizens feel that the City is in control of the Master Developer. The public hearing was closed for Authority discussion. Chair Appezzato stated the Board is giving guidance to staff to proceed to investigate a Master -2- Developer, without any decision being made now to sign on a Master Developer. If the majority of the Council does not agree in involving a Master Developer, there may be other alternatives which can be pursued. Mayor Appezzato stated his guidance to the staff is that they be alert to other options if the Master Developer does not work out. The Board and staff owe some loyalty to the existing leaseholders who have generated approximately $7.5 million dollars over the years and that their leases should be honored to the very end. As another option to the Master Developer, the City may want to parcel out the property and allow the City to be the developer of these parcels. The question is, does the Board want to give a Master Developer 100% of the base or just portions? There must be flexibility in this entire process. Member Daysog stated he agrees with Chair Appezzato with respect to looking at other options and being flexible. Segregating the residential west housing area, also known as Package "K" on Alameda Point may be an option. As individuals, the Board needs to clarify the qualifications each member is looking for. Member Daysog stated the process should work for everyone, not just those who qualify for market rate homes, including mixed housing of a variety other than what is standard. With regards to the bird sanctuary, staff and the Board did a good job in preserving every living being under God's sky. Clarification also needs to be made clear on what is up -front dollars. One of the selling points of a Master Developer is their ability to finance front -end costs. The base is about 1,500 acres. Are we expecting those lands, if turned over to a Master Developer, to be put on the property tax roles such that the City can begin to attain property taxes? Would this be an incentive for a Master Developer to go out and find sub- developers? These type of questions should be made clear to a Master Developer. We do not want to have a Master Developer that sits on the land and land -banks it. The three key points here are the mixed use housing (low and moderate), clarity on up -front dollars and clarity on not allowing any developer to sit on the 1,500 acres. Member Kerr asked when staff recommends choosing a Master Developer and the City is called the Executive Developer, does this mean that the City will retain title to the land or will the City sell the property? City Manager Jim Flint responded that the role of the Executive Developer versus the role of a Master Developer has been identified in the staff reports. As the property is conveyed to the City by the Navy, one of the roles as the Executive Developer, is that the City will sell that property to a Master Developer for whatever purposes that are identified in a master plan. The City has the role as the Executive Developer because the City will be the owner of the perspective property that will be for sale. Member Kerr stated she would like to see an up -front sale of the property, including a bidding process to determine what the property is worth. If there are developers who are willing to pay for the land as it is and take the responsibility for the infrastructure, could be an option for the City. The land should also be marketed to determine if there are bids that would be acceptable to the citizens of Alameda. There should be competitive bidding throughout the process. On the FISC and East Housing there was a formal RFQ from the APAC for three (3) developers. The Council did not have any dollar amounts to deal with when they chose Catellus. There was never any competition for Catellus East Housing on the dollar level. Catellus was picked based upon -3- their qualifications and then the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) without any competitiveness during the negotiations. The spirit in the sense of competition should be present during all of the negotiations with a Master Developer for Alameda Point. Catellus had such a lock on it through all the ENA, that when the final decision was made, there was no one else to negotiate with. There should always be other players throughout the negotiation so that the City gets the best possible terms. The developers should be well seasoned and experienced in design and the use of the property should be looked at differently than what it was in the Community Reuse Plan, as that was done several years ago. Chair Appezzato asked staff with regards to the Catellus project, did they not go out competitively with an RFQ and get seven (7) responses and then narrow it down to the three (3)? Was that not a competitive process? Jeff Bond, Development Manager responded that there were approximately seven (7) responses and that list was shortened to three (3) developers. Chair Appezzato asked were their financial plans included with those developers? Jeff Bond responded yes there were. Member Kerr stated that they were all successfully and thoroughly revised during the ENA process. Chair Appezzato responded that he just wanted clarification for the record. Member Kerr responded that the BRAG came forth and recommended three (3) developers, which resulted in three (3) developers for the RFQ for the Catellus East Housing project. Chair Appezzato responded that there was a competitive process and there were financial plans submitted. Member Daysog stated that it is not unusual while going through the ENA process with one developer that the local government can choose to change the process and start all over again. Competition had been there with respect to the Catellus project and East Housing. However, it is up to Council to make a decision through the ENA process to go forward or not. Member Daysog asked that when a Master Developer is pursued, is the Master Developer expected to develop the entire 1,500 acres of land or are we expecting the Master Developer to find sub - developers to develop different parcels of the land? City Manager Jim Flint responded there are a couple of options the Council could choose. The Council ultimately will decide as to what will be included in the land to be developed, in terms of the specific sites that will be available for development. Secondly, a Master Developer will work with the community in developing a plan for the property and may sub -out portions of the land to other developers. The Master Developer must be able to develop the property in accordance with -4- a Master Plan developed by the community and approved by the City Council. Member Johnson stated she agreed with the Chair Appezzato that the process should be open and flexible and that the Board is not making a specific commitment at this time. This is a huge undertaking for the City of Alameda, which needs careful consideration. Member Johnson expressed that the Board should go forward with this process, with special consideration to Parcel K, which is primarily residential which contains some historic housing and should be preserved. It is in the area with some existing residents at the base and should be compatible with the historic housing and the residents who are there. There should be a very high quality development, versus squeezing for the best price. There should be quality development that Alameda residents will be proud of fifty years from now. All of the land should be developed, whether it is sold or developed by a Master Developer. The City will have a higher degree of control if there is a Master Developer. It is appropriate to get the process started, while remaining flexible. The developer should be made aware if there are certain restrictions on areas that the City does not want developed, for example the golf and sports complex areas and Parcel K. The design should reflect the City of Alameda. All disclosures should be made prior to acquiring any Master Developer. Member DeWitt stated he agreed with Chair Appezzato and the other Board members that special consideration should be given to the housing, golf course and some of the existing leaseholders. The staff report presented for this item, outlines and lists six (6) benefits of a Master Developer, but also indicates other alternatives, other than a Master Developer. Member DeWitt moved approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Member Johnson and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0. Discussion. Chair Appezzato stated that the City does not have the resources to have a daily newspaper for updates to the base, only the Alameda Journal does the updates. Chair Appezzato stated staff and the Board will try to keep everyone as informed as possible. Chair Appezzato thanked Congresswoman Lee's office and Alameda County Board of Supervisor Wilma Chan for their contribution and efforts to make this process thus far a successfiil effort. Member Kerr stated the City has control of the zoning, no matter what option is undertaken. The City controls the money and planning. Member Kerr stated that although the City should pursue the best financial deal, we should not loose sight of a good general plan and the citizens of Alameda should have a say in the quality of high design at Alameda Point. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully, -5- Lucretia AM ARRA Secretary m