2010-05-18 Joint CC ARRA CIC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 18, 2010- -7:01 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 9:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Johnson – 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote – 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*10-248 CC/ARRA/10-31 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and
CIC Meeting Held on May 4, 2010.
(*10-32 CIC/ARRA) Recommendation to Accept the Third Quarter Financial Report.
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION
(10-249 CC/ARRA/10-33 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services gave a brief presentation.
In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore’s inquiry, the
Deputy City Manager – Development Services stated the Veterans Administration (VA)
Section 7 consultation is part of the regulatory process that the VA has to go through;
consultations are required because the conveyance of the land is considered to have a
potential impact on the least turn colony; that she spoke to the Navy this week regarding
questions that came up at the May 6th meeting; the Navy is preparing responses;
responses will be brought back at the next ARRA meeting.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Optional
Entitlement Agreement (OEA) concerns are being tackled now.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
May 18, 2010
1
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded staff is walking through
project planning issues raised in the staff report.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would be
presenting anything this evening, to which the Deputy City Manager – Development
Services responded SunCal would be available to answer any questions but would not
make a presentation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the Planning Board raised
germane land use issues, which would require a lot of public outreach; inquired whether
there is a next step regarding how issues would be addressed during the public
comment period.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded one objective is an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping session, which has its own process; the
other objective is taking comments on the plan itself.
Speakers: Doug Siden, Alameda; Andrew Slivka, Alameda County Carpenters Union;
and David Howard, Alameda.
AGENDA ITEMS
(10-250 CC/ARRA/10-34 CIC) Recommendation to Review and Accept Presentation on
SunCal Modified Optional Entitlement Application
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services and the Planning Services Manager
gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how many homes were in
the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC), to which the Planning Services Manager
responded 1,800, which included the Collaborative.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the commercial
square footage was 3.4 million, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether an EIR supported
the Community Reuse Plan.
The Planning Services Manager responded there is a finished EIR on the Community
Reuse Plan and the Alameda Point General Plan amendment; stated the General Plan
amendment looked at around 18,000 residential units and 2.3 million square feet of
commercial.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
May 18, 2010
2
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated immense transportation
concerns came out of the EIR inquired whether Measure B has similar mitigations.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Election Report contained a lot of
assumptions because the [Measure B] transportation plan was so vague.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal shows 2,100 homes
at 50 units per acre in the density bonus project; inquired whether there is anything
similar within the City.
The Planning Services Manager responded older apartment buildings off of Webster
Street have three or four stories on small lots with very little parking; stated that he does
not know of any similar blocks.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Summer Home has 36 units
per acre; SunCal showed 70 units at the Planning Board presentation.
The Planning Services Manager stated 70 units was a mistake; the density bonus plan
proposes up to a maximum of 50 units per acre.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated 50 units per acre is almost
half of the project; inquired whether SunCal is using relegated open spaces.
The Planning Services Manager responded SunCal wants to have some blocks up to 50
units per acre around the transit corridor; stated the rest would be spread out.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether increasing
affordable housing from 15% to 25% has been discussed.
The Planning Services Manager responded the plan proposes 25%; stated details are
not known.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the baseline of the
PDC was in the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA).
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded the Request for
Qualification (RFQ) process talked about implementing the PDC project, but the ENA
does not specify the PDC project.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he thought the baseline
of the PDC was in the ENA.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services stated that she does not remember
the PDC being called out.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
May 18, 2010
3
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the ENA inferred the PDC
baseline and allowed looking at modifying Measure A.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded the ENA has been
amended twice; the ENA was amended the first time in order to provide some time for
shifting milestones; the ENA was amended the second time to allow for a ballot initiative
and dealt with adding an investor and allowing a one year extension.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what were the key items in
the ballot initiative.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded the ballot initiative
consisted of a Charter amendment, a specific plan, a General Plan amendment, a
zoning amendment, and a development agreement; stated the ballot initiative included
almost all entitlements with the exception of the Disposition and Development
Agreement (DDA).
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated focus should be on what is
wanted: job creation costs, work force housing, 25% affordable housing, recreational
amenities, public facilities and all infrastructure associated with the commercial
development; the EIR process is supposed to help look at the spectrum of alternatives
and to understand impacts associated with traffic; not realizing that there would be
significant upfront costs for amenities would be naive; the project has to be fiscally
neutral; facilities would need to generate sufficient revenues to pay for infrastructure;
that she is not hearing what is the balance; inquired whether there is a process to
resolve the issues, to which the Deputy City Manager – Development Services
responded currently, staff is in the process.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she would like to scope
the full spectrum of alternatives, understand impacts associated with each alternative,
and see whether impacts associated with alternatives could be mitigated; the City has a
master developer as a partner until July 20th; the plan should not be referred to as a
master developer’s plan but should be the City’s plan; the plan should be developed
accordingly.
Speakers: John Knox White, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Jim Sweeney,
Alameda; Helen Sauce, HOMES; Jean Sweeney, Alameda (provided handout); Susan
Decker, Alameda; Michael Krueger, Alameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society; Kent Lewandowski, Sierra Club; Christopher Seiwald, Alameda;
Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Lois Pryor, Renewed Hope; Darcy Morrison, Alameda;
Joe Mallon, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda; Janet Davis, Alameda; Jay Ingram,
Alameda; Andreas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades Council; Alan Tubbs, Naval
Air Museum; and Ashley Jones, Alameda.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
May 18, 2010
4
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated questions need to be
worked into the process; providing some frame of reference is important; the
progression of the residential unit burden needs to be addressed including the
Conveyance Plan, PDC, Measure B, and Optional Entitlement Application (OEA); that
he would like to have the issue measured against Associated Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) obligations; more depth is needed regarding the economic development
strategy, including the type of commercial activity, intra-City commute, and meeting the
original base reuse and alignment mandate to replace jobs that disappeared when the
former Naval Base closed; requested a report on financial conditions that were present
in the run up to Measure B and the status of the large delta between SunCal estimates
and/or caps on public amenities versus Public Works’ estimate; a report is needed on
whether the $1.8 million burden that was in the draft term sheet with the Navy back in
2006 is still relevant and if not whether there is a way to portion out some of the clean
up at the end of the process; that he would like to have an analysis and presentation
from the City and SunCal regarding how to ensure that the City does not become a
Albuquerque; a risk analysis is needed; the signed Project Labor Agreement is a
positive and has always been a requirement; that he is glad the Agreement was signed
after three years; an intense time is needed for filling in facts, then decisions can be
made.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal made a presentation
to the Planning Board last week; inquired whether the ideas in the presentation were
conceptual.
Mr. Brown responded the Density Bonus option was presented and is the plan that
SunCal intends to build within the community.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan provided a handout; stated the
highlighted section on page 6 sits directly over the contaminated area and is a high
density area which is approximately one mile from the transportation center; the back
page shows embedded garages and sixty-five foot buildings with no set backs; inquired
whether the drawing is conceptual.
Mr. Brown responded the product is intended to be an urban product that would fit in
with the overall community vision; stated the complex would have zero or small set
backs.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the example shows a picture
of a very dense building adjacent to a railroad track; page 5 shows an artist’s rendition
of what the ferry terminal would look like; inquired what is the size of the buildings.
Mr. Brown responded sixty-five feet; stated the height limitation would result in more
varied, interesting architecture.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
May 18, 2010
5
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he is trying to see what is
similar in Alameda.
Mr. Brown stated that Alameda has a variety of architectural styles; the downtown area
does not have development next to commercial; streets are active; the goal is to create
a vision where density is clustered near transportation to encourage use of
transportation other than automobiles; studies have shown that ridership drops off
dramatically when people live farther away from public transportation opportunities.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the southeast
corner of the lagoon would be the concept for the commercial area, to which Mr. Brown
responded a massing study was used to illustrate the portion of the property.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether only 45 historical
buildings would be retained, to which Mr. Brown responded that he does not have the
exact figure.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the original number of 83 was
reduced to 80 because of building conditions; inquired why the original Measure B plan
and conceptual plan are almost identical.
Mr. Brown responded the plan is to deliver the vision that SunCal heard expressed at
numerous meetings which would be to achieve a goal of delivering an economically
viable development and minimize traffic impacts by encouraging the use of density
transfers and public transportation.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) has designated transit-oriented areas; Alameda
does not have designated transit-oriented areas.
In response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan’s inquiry as to why
MTC does not believe the plan is a transit oriented hub, Mr. Brown stated MTC might
not have considered the alternative; SunCal would work with MTC; the process takes
eighteen months to two years; a complete plan would be presented in which all
questions are answered.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether an EIR is normally
in a land use proposal process.
Mr. Brown responded a plan is submitted; then, an EIR process commences; an
interactive, vigorous process leads to the ultimate development of an EIR report.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
May 18, 2010
6
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired why SunCal did not do an
EIR two years ago.
Mr. Brown responded the road map to achieve a transit oriented plan was unclear;
stated now; the process is more straightforward.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the ENA will sunset in 60
days or has to be extended.
Mr. Brown stated SunCal is working with staff to advance the plan; if milestones are
met, the ENA extends automatically; the process takes time.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the pictures [submitted by Vice Mayor/Board
Member/Commissioner deHaan] are from the Planning Board meeting, to which Mr.
Brown responded the pictures have been modified from the presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the pictures should be posted on the website; that she
does not understand how the development would be transit oriented without a
transportation plan.
Mr. Brown stated $700,000 has been budgeted for traffic and transit studies; the plan
has been built on the shoulders of 2008 studies.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she is not certain that the starting point for residential
units and commercial square footage is correct.
Mr. Brown responded the 2008 plan was a combined plan done by transportation
engineers, land planners, and an economic consultant; the transit plus plan was the
third option and contemplated 5,000 residential units and 3.4 million square feet of
commercial; the plan has been studied by the City and delivers enough economic value
to be able to afford the required transportation improvements.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the rest of Alameda does not live in a transit oriented
development and has to get through the Tube; half of the residents get on and off the
island through the Tubes; that she is not sure the starting point is correct.
Mr. Brown stated that an EIR would look at transit oriented land plans at a unit count up
to 4,700 units; the number may change; the process is ongoing; the project and transit
solution do not exist in a bubble but within the context of the City.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the embedded garage structure would be transit
oriented.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
May 18, 2010
7
Mr. Brown responded the embedded garage structure is a mechanism to meet the
proposed parking standards, which are a tad more stringent.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated parking standards need to be more than a tad more
stringent to be transit oriented.
Mr. Brown stated such comments would be layered through professional consultants to
see what would and would not work; the goal is to put people in proximity to public
transportation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the embedded garages are residential or
commercial structures, to which Mr. Brown responded residential.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated people are going use a car if a car is available; Treasure
Island is restricting people’s ability to have cars.
Mr. Brown stated the process would review the matter; the idea is to not see the garage.
Mayor/Chair Johnson concurred; stated the look is more attractive.
Mr. Brown stated the question is what is the appropriate parking ratio to maximize the
amount of transit activity; the issue needs to be studied.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Mr. Tagani was working on an analysis of historic assets;
inquired whether the analysis has been completed.
Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated Mr. Tagani looked at every building and
made recommendations on what would be economically viable to rehabilitate and
reuse; reports have been prepared; staff wants a more detailed analysis on buildings
which Mr. Tagani did not feel appropriate to move forward on.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a plan for accommodating affordable housing is important.
Mr. Brown agreed.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated phasing plans are very important and need to be done
sooner rather than later.
Mr. Brown stated that the City has a phasing plan, which would be subject to
discussion.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there are a few critical issues; staff and SunCal are
engaged in the process of negotiating a DDA; a DDA cannot be negotiated without
knowing what is the project.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
May 18, 2010
8
Mr. Brown stated professional study results would not be known before an 18-month
EIR is initiated; the process would be to start with the best judgment as to what would
be an appropriate plan given the constraints; professional studies would either validate
information or feedback would be received for modification.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated if less residential units and commercial square footage is
wanted, it should be changed now before getting too far in the DDA negotiation process;
the number can always be changed based upon the EIR findings.
Mr. Brown stated another way to address the issue would be through the alternative
analysis process contained within the CEQA process; SunCal has proposed a base
entitlement of approximately 3,800 homes and has discussed a vision for a
density/transit oriented community that could have up to 4,800 homes; studying
alternatives is part of the normal CEQA process.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that being conservative is better when starting out to know
if it pencils out.
Mr. Brown stated SunCal has been working with staff on sensitivity economic runs at
various target points; that he would be happy to run an economic model.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the project’s economic tilting point is not known; a 25%
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is pretty high; questioned how it could be adjusted.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City does not know
how much tax increment financing would be needed and when; the matter should be
added to the list.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the economics involve the project; it is unknown whether
the project would be viable with 3,000 units or 2,500 units.
Mr. Brown stated the City’s 2008 study showed that the project would be greatly
benefited by having more units to support ridership and support capital requirements in
order to achieve the full implementation of the proposed transit solutions.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated tonight everyone is looking to get as much input as
possible.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked staff for the
presentation; stated staff was going through the PDC process with Alameda Point
Community Partners (APCP); the one thing that she heard from the community was
how traffic was going to impact people already on the island; the number one issue is
traffic and traffic mitigation and how it would be phased with development; whatever is
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
May 18, 2010
9
developed at Alameda Point will have some impact on the rest of the island; the
question is what does the rest of Alameda get for developing Alameda Point; Council
insists on fiscal neutrality but public benefits would be provided for the rest of Alameda;
public benefits are the carrot for the rest of Alameda and need to be funded; having
systems in place to mitigate traffic burdens is a really difficult job but is important to nail
down.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Navy has not been at its peak for decades; in the past,
there was more tolerance for Navy traffic; traffic created by development would not have
much tolerance.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated more square footage is being
requested than for Measure B; Marina Village is 60% vacant; available office space is
not being utilized; the original Community Reuse Plan was for blue collar job generation
to backfill jobs lost; that he is concerned that 60 days from now a decision will need to
be made; he is uncomfortable with decisions made; SunCal could not satisfy the needs
of unions, schools, historical element, and community in general; today, SunCal is
kinder and gentler; however, everyone is identical except for one person; SunCal went
into bankruptcy because of Lehman Brothers; SunCal is having the same problems with
D.E. Shaw; that he is not comfortable with the financial aspect of signing into a
partnership; he does not want to be involved in a legal suit or bankruptcy; that he was
concerned with picking up D.E. Shaw but could not convey what was brought to the
table because everything was confidential; the City has been in a three year process;
the City went into a five year process with APCP; the City decided to finance a PDC
after two and a half years; people can sort out what they liked and disliked about
Measure B but Measure B was still defeated.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
May 18, 2010
10