Loading...
1997-01-21 Special CIC Minutes246 SPECIAL MEETING OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 21. 1997 Chair Appezzato convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kerr . The Invocation was given by Reverend Don Taylor of the Central Baptist Church. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Commissioners Daysog, Kerr, Lucas, DeWitt and Chair Appezzato - 5. ABSENT: None. MINUTES (97-03) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of January 7, 1997. Commissioner Lucas moved approval of the Minutes. Commissioner DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried unanimous voice vote - 5. REGULAR AGENDA (97-04) Report from Vice-Chair, Economic Development Commission, regarding approval of the Request for Proposals to the Lincoln Property Company, the Martin Group and Catellus Development Corporation for redevelopment of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center. Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda, stated that the City should use the Internet to inform the world of what the City is doing on base conversion. Commissioner Lucas moved that the Community Improvement Commission approve the Economic Development Commission's recommendation [that the CIC approve the Request for Proposals to be issued to The Lincoln Property Company, The Martin Group and Catellus Development Corporation for the redevelopment of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center]. Vice Chair DeWitt seconded the motion. Special Meeting of the Community Improvement Conunission January 21, 1997 247 Under discussion, Commissioner Kerr stated that one part of the FISC property is a narrow corridor of land between the East Housing and housing that will be taken over by the Coast Guard; that it does not make sense to plan for that narrow corridor, whether developers want to put housing or something else there; but any master planning should include the larger amount of area for East Housing; she knows that the City does not have title to it now, but it is a possibility that they could take a lease option on the East Housing and submit a proposal for the entire area--the FISC area and the East Housing; it would make a lot more sense for decent planning for that area, rather than to develop in little pieces; we have a major and very unique transportation connection down the street and the San Francisco Ferry Terminal; it would be easier to bring in innovations that connect this whole area to that terminal, if it were looked at as a Master Plan; she is suggesting an alternative--if the developers wish to do so-- proposal not just for the FISC, but a Master Plan that would include the East Housing; it would have to be a lease option; if they did a lease option, there would be some income for Alameda Redevelopment and Reuse Authority during the interim period until title is acquired. President Appezzato stated that the FISC property is 169 acres and in a different BRAC; he does not know what the ramifications would be; he has no problem with a developer giving an alternate--a "what if"; but if you are going to include East Housing for whatever reason, why not include the whole base and the whole 2,000 acres; he has always viewed FISC as the stepping stone--the catalyst--for the rest of the base; he does not know when title to FISC, or the rest of the base, will be given; he is not opposed to developers, at their own expense, giving some--if they win the proposal-- "what if's" if they did own the land; whether they are willing to take on another bunch of acreage, he does not know; he would like the matter to go to the Base Reuse Advice Group before a decision is made tonight on including another bunch of land, especially since we went out with a Request for Qualifications for the FISC; three developers were picked, and he does not know what the legal ramifications could be because of another proposal; and 169 acres seems like a lot of land for a developer to start with. Commissioner Kerr stated that the peculiar corridor is sticking out by itself between two sections of housing, one of which we will be changing; the corridor is separated from the Main Base, and it is poor City planning to plan in pieces. Commissioner Lucas stated that the Mayor raised a good question regarding legal ramifications; from a development point, it is good to have a uniform approach; that the property is subject to the Alameda Redevelopment and Reuse Authority, and the City Attorney should speak on the matter. Special Meeting of the Conummity Improvement Commission January 21, 1997 248 President Appezzato stated that the Request For Qualifications (RFQ) were sent out to about seven developers; he has no objection going back to the Alameda Redevelopment and Reuse Authority, or the City Council going out with separate development plans; the Base Reuse Advisory Group has provided its recommendations; however, he is not going to support an extension at this time; however, he is willing to look at it; a legal opinion should be provided on what the proposal would do to the other developers not included in the process. The City Attorney stated that the Request for Qualifications sought the most qualified developers; the developers did not submit proposals; there is no legal basis for anyone to sue the City; she needs to look at the ownership of the East Housing, and whether it is capable of being developed by the City, ARRA or the owner; she does not recall whether it is subject to the BRAC process, or if it has FISC exemption; there is a special dispensation dealing with FISC property; Council could make it conditional upon issuing RFPs, and if legally feasible it could be included; Council could also require a • separate RFP--for example, to the same people; Council has a number of different ways to deal with the East Housing; and Council could legally tack it on. Chair Appezzato stated that the FISC property may be conveyed differently than the rest of the property; CIC has a recommendation from the Economic Development Commission; the Base Reuse Advisory Group has addressed the matter; he would like to go forward with the [EDC) recommendation; it is in the direction that the City has been going; the inclusion of the East Housing can be looked at some other point in time; and the two properties are in different BRAC's. Commissioner Daysog stated that Commissioner Kerr's suggestion is a wise one from a planning perspective; East Housing will be right behind the FISC property which will definitely color the perception of the FISC property as a whole; if we want to go with the motion, we could make the FISC property--the development that occurs--a phase-1-type development, and encourage the developers to include the East Housing as a phase-2-type development; sometimes phase-2 developments never happen because of legal reasons or because financing is not available; we should not preclude whoever wins the FISC property RFP because they did not come up with a phase 2; and he would like to include a phase 2 rendering. Chair Appezzato stated that he concurs with Councilmember Daysog and that is basically what he stated: we go forward with this [recommendation), [and) with the option of including the East Housing later; we should not stop what we are doing now; East Special Meeting of the Community improvement Conunission January 21, 1997 249 Housing and the rest of the Base should be looked at as the property is conveyed; that to stop now, to go back and ask-- he could not support it without the Economic Development Commission and the Base Reuse Advisory Group being a part of process; they have been part of the process for three years and to not get their input now would be irregular. Commissioner Kerr inquired whether East Housing would be included as phase 2 and nothing in the motion would prevent a developer from considering uses for the East Housing. Chair Appezzato responded that he does not have any problem with a developer, at his/her own cost, coming forward with comments; however, a change to the recommendation should be sent to the EDC and BRAG for comment; he would like to move forward, at least, on the recommendation; if the CIC wishes to make a change to include other (property), it should be sent to the Committee(s) [Groups and/or Commissions) that Council selected, for their input on the matter; many of the members are highly qualified architects and property specialists. Commissioner Kerr stated that it bothers her the matter has gone to the Economic Development Commission route, rather than the Planning Board route; it shows that it is being isolated and has not been through Planning Board which considers the City as a whole. Chair Appezzato stated that there is a motion and a second on the report; if there is an amendment for the developers to go forward on their own to provide a recommendation for East Housing-- at least we approve what is before us and allow the developers to go forward; he has no problem with the developers looking at East Housing; but if we approve that tonight, he would also like it to go back to the BRAG and EDC for comment. Commissioner Kerr stated that she has no problem with the recommendation on East Housing being sent back, as long as CIC may ask the developers tonight to consider East Housing as a phase 2. Chair Appezzato stated that he does not have any problem with that, but the Commission needs to support the report. Commissioner Lucas stated that it is an excellent idea to have the EDC look at the phase 2 aspects and give the Commission feedback on that too--and the Alameda Redevelopment and Reuse Authority. Special Meeting of the Conununity hnprovement Conmussion January 21, 1997 250 Chair Appezzato responded "approve this and send it back; some of them are here tonight, the developers, and they can go forward; but at least we will have professional input from our BRAG and we cannot be criticized for not involving the community--people we selected to do the job to bring this forward." Commissioner Lucas stated that, at this point, it is optional with the developer whether he or she wants to consider phase 2. Commissioner Kerr stated that is fine with her. Chair Appezzato stated that everything we do tonight has to get to each of the developers clearly; developers need to know exactly what the Commission did--that the Commission is approving this with the option of them going forward on the East Housing; and that the entire approval with the option is going back to the BRAG and EDC for comment. Commissioner DeWitt stated that he is not sure if the Commission is asking the developers to also include East Housing with the FISC development. Chair Appezzato stated that the developers need to be officially notified--all three of them--of what the Commission just did tonight: that the Commission approved the report; and developers, if willing, may include East Housing as part of the RFP. Commissioner DeWitt stated he thought there was a Reuse Plan and it had been decided what was going to happen with East Housing; and he questioned whether they do not like the Reuse Plan and want the FISC developers to take over that portion. Chair Appezzato responded that he hoped not; that he hopes they are saying to go forward; we are allowing the developers the option to look at East Housing, in addition to what we previously went forward with. Commissioner Kerr stated that East Housing is going to the Planning Board--it is not engraved in stone yet; and she would like the motion as the Commission has amended it. Chair Appezzato stated he wants to caution Council [Commission] to not get involved in sending things to the Planning Board and confusing the entire process; he thinks some clarifying needs to be done by staff and the Attorney so that everyone understands what was done tonight; East Housing has already gone to the Planning Board; that process does not stop, it continues; and he agrees with Commissioner Daysog to continue with the process, and not to allow the motion tonight to stop anything that we have [previously] done. Special Meeting of the Conununity Improvement Conunission January 21, 1997 251 Commissioner Daysog stated that his understanding is planning for FISC will continue as it is; if the developers want to go with the phase-2 approach, then the City will send that back to them; and if they want to fulfill it, then at some point it [phases 1 and 2) will marry up together. Chair Appezzato stated that he hopes he has made it clear, and everyone agrees, that EDC and BRAG will be part of the process. Commissioner DeWitt stated that he would like to make it clear that the City is going out with a RFP for the Fleet Industrial Supply Center; that the developers will be allowed to develop the property and come up with ideas; the purpose of getting the land conveyed under the current procedures for the FISC is to not get involved in government entanglements and committees; and that coordination is great, but rewriting proposals would encumber the development of the FISC. Chair Appezzato stated he is concerned that there are two different BRACs, that the Reuse Plan is in Washington, D.C., and that the FISC may be a different conveyance from the rest of the Base. Commissioner Lucas stated that phase 2 would have to be totally optional and separate from phase 1. Chair Appezzato responded that phase 2 should not interfere with the BRAC process. Commissioner Lucas agreed. Commissioner Kerr stated that she has no objection. Commissioner Kerr further commented that if we get three tacky proposals for the corridor that do not coordinate with the East Housing land, she will not be inclined to look at the proposals favorably; she believes Commissioner Daysog expressed it well: that we look at FISC as phase 1, and if developer(s) want to submit a phase 2, fine. Commissioner Daysog stated that he did want the development of East Housing along with the FISC, and doing phase 1 and phase 2 would not encumber the process that much. Chair Appezzato stated that the City has to be sure not to take an action which will reverse where it is at this point; no final decisions have been made on any of the property; the 169 acres, which is relatively free and flat land and probably can be turned Special Meeting of the Conuuunity huprovenient Conuuission January 21, 1997 252 into productive use much more quickly than any other, is a totally separate conveyance process; and we must not interfere with the EIS/EIR back in Washington; and he can support approving the report and staff figuring out a way to convey the information to the developers, BRAG and EDC. Chair Appezzato further explained that the Commission is approving the report, asking the developers to look at East Housing, and not stopping any of the process to date. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner Kerr noted that the report refers to a new Ad Hoc FISC Working Group, and inquired who is serving in the group. The Community Development Director responded that the Ad Hoc Committee was planned as part of the process nearly three years ago; the first committee was comprised of nominees from the Economic Development Commission, BRAG, West Area Business Association, and the Chamber of Commerce; the reason for re- constituting the committee for phase 2 is because there has been a substantial turnover in EDC membership and changes in the BRAG; and when the RFPs came, nominations from current memberships were desired for continuity throughout the entire review of proposal(s) process. Commissioner Kerr inquired whether there had been discussion on Planning Board Members serving on the Committee. The Community Development Director stated that the Planning Board will act in a regulatory capacity on elements related to this matter; and the proposals were allowed only to be developed within the framework of the Community Reuse Plan. Chair Appezzato commented that a member of the Planning Board serves on the BRAG, and he inquired whether there would be a problem with Planning Board Member(s) serving on the Ad Hoc Committee. The City Attorney responded that BRAG is advisory to ARRA, not to the City Council; the FISC Working Group containing a member of the Planning Board could certainly raise questions as to the ability of the person to vote as a regulatory person on something that they were involved in developing and making recommendations on; and Planning Board members have the opportunity to address that in their Charter capacity on the Planning Board. Special Meeting of the Conununity Improvement Conuuission January 2l, 1997 25 Commissioner Kerr stated that she was concerned; that at the last ARRA meeting, there was almost an attempt to use the Planning Board as a rubber stamp for what had already been through this process; and that our Charter -form of government has the Planning Board as the chief Land Use body, and she wants to make sure that the Board is not bypassed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, Chair Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 8 :09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a4teh-/I Dime B. Felsch, Secretary This meeting was given public notice pursuant to the Brown Act. * ** Special Meeting of the Community lmprovcment Conunission January 21, 1997