2010-06-15 Joint CC ARRA CIC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING, AND
THE ANNUAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 15, 2010- -7:02 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 12:24 a.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Johnson – 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Board Member/Authority Member Gilmore stated page 4 of the minutes
should include the Power Point presentation given by Stan Brown, SunCal.
The City Clerk stated the minutes would be revised and brought back at the next
meeting.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the
remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote – 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(10-307 CC/ARRA/10-43 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC
Meeting held on June 1, 2010. Continued.
(10-44 CIC) Resolution No. 10-166, “Authorizing Execution and Delivery of an
Agreement Regarding Refunding of Authority Bonds.” Adopted.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the resolution should be amended to include the 6%
present value savings.
The City Clerk stated the 6% present value savings does not need to be in the CIC
resolution, only the corresponding Alameda Public Finance Authority (APFA) resolution
[paragraph no. 10-04 APFA].
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote –
5.
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION
(10-308 CC/ARRA/10-45 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services provided a handout and gave a brief
presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Stan Brown, SunCal, was here to speak or
answer questions, to which Mr. Brown responded to answer questions.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a lot of people would like to
see the former Naval Base cleaned up; inquired whether SunCal is phone banking.
Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal has been contacting supporters;
SunCal is urging supporters to let the Council/Board Members/Commissioners know
that there is broad support.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal is intending
to clean up the former Naval Base.
Mr. Brown responded in the negative; stated the intent of the communication is for
supporters to express continued support.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the communication
is coming from SunCal staff, to which Mr. Brown responded the communication is
coming from a consultant hired by SunCal.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the name of the
consultant, to which Mr. Brown responded he does not know.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the transcript and
consultant’s name could be provided, to which Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative.
Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda.
(10-309 CC/ARRA/10-46 CIC) Status Report of Finalized Navy Term Sheet Mandatory
Milestone pursuant to Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Section 4.2.2.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated $108 million would
have provided the Navy with profit participation when the housing market was hot and
was calculated based upon far less units than what is in the Optional Entitlement
Agreement (OEA); requested that future analysis project 5,000 units instead of 1,700
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
units.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services stated that she would apply the
formula specified in the draft Navy term sheet to the project to see what the land
payment would be.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the base project is
the Measure A compliant plan and whether the density bonus option is higher; further
inquired whether the two ranges would be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded project alternatives have
not been analyzed, but staff is close to finalizing a project description; stated the project
description includes the base project and density bonus option; staff is studying two
build-out scenarios.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated one hybrid project is being
analyzed; inquired whether the base project and hybrid project would be analyzed when
the Navy term sheet is developed in accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement (ENA).
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded staff has not started
negotiations on the modified OEA; stated staff has significant concerns with the project
pro forma, and does not want to enter into land payment negotiations with the Navy;
that she assumes that final term sheet negotiations would be based upon the density
bonus option project because SunCal wants to build said project.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she recalls receiving an
email inviting Council, the Interim City Manager, and the Deputy City Manager –
Development Services to some type of outreach with the Navy; subsequently, the
Interim City Manager sent an email reminding Council that a Council subcommittee was
formed; inquired whether the subcommittee ever met with the Navy and the Pentagon is
unclear; inquired whether the staff report asserts that SunCal may be in breach of the
Agreement because of what may have been a meeting with the Department of Defense
that included the Navy.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated
that she was on a conference call with SunCal in which SunCal notified both the City
and Navy that they would like to set up a meeting with the Department of the Navy in
Washington, D.C.; that she and the Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC) Office in
San Diego requested to be invited; several times, the BRAC Office asked when the
meeting might occur; she and the BRAC Office were never notified.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Deputy City
Manager – Development Services knows what the meeting was about.
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded the BRAC Office
informed her that the meeting did occur; stated conveyance term details were not
discussed at the meeting; SunCal requested that the Navy support the six month ENA
extension.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Deputy City
Manager – Development Services’ made a determination that there was a breach of the
Agreement.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded that she did not make
the determination, but staff and the legal team made the determination that the City was
supposed to be notified and invited to attend the meeting; that she was not invited to the
meeting or a subsequent negotiation session.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether or not the
Washington, D.C. meeting was an outcome of the email which invited Council, the
Interim City Manager and Deputy City Manager – Development Services to the meeting
and reminded everyone that the subcommittee had been formed.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded the meeting may have
been; stated that she was never provided with a date or invited to attend.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested clarification on what
transpired in Washington, D.C. and how communication occurred.
Mr. Brown stated initially, the meeting was with the Department of Defense; that he
heads SunCal’s renewable energy plan; SunCal wanted to discuss opportunities to sell
power to the federal government; solar power issues were discussed; negotiating was
not done; the status of the ENA was discussed; that he still wants the Council
subcommittee meeting to occur.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether meeting
discussions were communicated to staff.
Mr. Brown responded that he called the Interim City Manager the next day; stated the
Interim City Manager returned his call but he and the Interim City Manager were unable
to connect; that he believes that SunCal CEO Frank Faye sent a text message to the
Mayor regarding the meeting; the meeting was not focused on Alameda Point; that he
strongly disagrees with the breach of Agreement position; the Agreement has a specific
provision that states the developer is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy
regarding the project or project site as long as the developer keeps the City informed.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Mr. Brown’s phone call was after
the fact; Mr. Faye advised her that he would take direction from Council and not the
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
subcommittee.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal requested the Navy to support an ENA
extension.
Mr. Brown responded that SunCal indicated that the ENA would be ending soon and
that SunCal wanted to remain involved in the project.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired if the conversation included whether the Navy supports
the ENA extension, to which Mr. Brown responded briefly.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Section 20-1 states that
SunCal is not to meet or engage in negotiations with the Navy concerning the project or
project site without giving advanced, reasonable notice to the City in order to give the
City an opportunity to negotiate with SunCal and the Navy at such meeting; inquired
what is Mr. Brown’s interpretation of said Section.
Mr. Brown responded that he concurs that the statement is the first sentence of the
Section; however, the second sentence states “notwithstanding anything to the contrary
in the foregoing, developer is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy
regarding the project and project site as long as the developer promptly keeps the City
informed of such communications”; stated SunCal made no attempt to negotiate with
the Navy without the City being present.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired how the meeting came
about; further inquired whether Mr. Brown just happened to be in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Brown responded in the negative; stated SunCal does a fair amount of business
with the Department of Defense; originally, SunCal was talking to the Department of
Defense regarding solar opportunities; SunCal has been pursuing entering into a Power
Purchase Agreement to sell power to the armed services; the opportunity came to head
at the meeting.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that it does not sound like a
meeting was planned to follow up on Council’s opportunity to meet with the Navy;
inquired whether SunCal informed City staff immediately after the meeting.
Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal still wants to meet with senior
Navy staff, Councilmembers, and City staff to negotiate terms of the Agreement; one
frustration has been that SunCal desires to have communications with the Navy but the
City has not been willing to schedule a joint meeting because of pro forma concerns and
other issues; the situation is curious in that after a year of requesting to have a joint
meeting, SunCal is considered to be in breach of the Agreement.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the path to the
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
resolution of pro forma issues.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded staff has been working
on the new pro forma for less than two months; stated an extensive report was attached
to the June 1, 2010 staff report regarding the pro forma; staff was directed to sit down
and resolve some of the issues; staff met with SunCal today; that she advised Mr.
Brown that staff discussed different assumptions and related, rational assumptions; staff
would meet with the consultant [EPS] today to discuss issues; conversations would
continue on Thursday.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired when staff expects issues
to be resolved.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded resolving issues are not
just up to staff; stated negotiations are mutual.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired when SunCal expects
issues to be resolved.
Mr. Brown responded today’s phone call was productive; stated that he is unfamiliar
with EPS’s housing methodology and pricing; EPS feels that the unit value approach
versus square footage is the appropriate value measurement; that he disagrees with
said analysis; today, EPS was unable to advise him why it considered SunCal’s
construction costs to be too low; EPS wants to compare the project to Bayport, which
has very few water views; water views are probably why SunCal has a higher premium
in its pro forma; that he is not sure when issues would be resolved to bring closure.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services stated staff would be coming back
on July 7th to provide an update.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the status regarding school facility issues.
Mr. Brown responded SunCal has had meetings with the School District; stated that he
is not sure whether changes have occurred in the last month or so; the School District is
evaluating facility needs; SunCal has provided two school sites within the plan.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated school site placement has been an issue.
Mr. Brown stated the he is unaware of any location issues, but SunCal would be happy
to engage in said conversation; the issue is a normal give and take process and would
be part of the EIR.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal is working on a transportation plan.
Mr. Brown responded transportation planning is a big part of the budget; stated SunCal
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
is finding its own expert to advance the ball on transportation and transit issues;
alternatives are being reviewed; SunCal realizes that issues need to be fully mitigated in
order for a plan to be viable and approved by the City; SunCal recognizes that
transportation issues cannot become worse and is willing to work with its own
consultant in addition to the joint consultant retained through the EIR.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the EIR would provide an option for fewer
housing units.
Mr. Brown responded an alternative to be studied in the EIR has not been identified;
stated work still needs to be done; typically, one option would be to have a lower level of
development proposed; the EIR consultant and staff, along with comments from
SunCal, would develop an alternative to be studied for a reasonable, smaller project.
AGENDA ITEMS
(10-47 CIC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 10-167, “Approving and
Adopting the Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and the
West End Community Improvement Projects (2010-2014).” Adopted.
The Economic Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Commissioner Gilmore thanked the Economic Development Director for the
presentation; stated sometimes the City gets busy pushing ahead on the next project
and does not take the opportunity to look back on accomplishments; the City has
changed for the better.
The Economic Development Director stated policy decisions have been put in place
with a lot of community input; this is the time for the City to talk about the impact that
projects have had on the community; in the last couple of years, funding projects
without redevelopment agency support has been difficult; the construction trade is the
hardest hit unemployment group in Alameda County.
Commissioner Tam stated that she would like to echo appreciation to staff; all
Councilmembers throughout the State are telling their legislature that redevelopment
funds are an economic engine and create jobs; inquired whether the City has a strategy
for locating retail sites.
The Economic Development Director responded the City has a number of different retail
opportunities which are not necessarily within the redevelopment project area
boundaries; stated Alameda Landing has an opportunity for up to 300,000 square feet
of retail; the City has identified how much the City could handle through a saturation
invoice and retail leakage analysis; the Catellus Agreement has a retail marketing plan
in which Catellus has to meet quarterly with the City; Catellus needs to update the retail
strategic planning analysis if it deviates from its basic retail plan; the Marina Village
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
Shopping Center has issues; Bridgeside Shopping Center never finished leasing its
property; the City needs to work on the strategic retail side.
Speaker: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:32
a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010