Loading...
2010-04-06 Joint CC ARRA CIC MinutesSpecial Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 6, 2010 1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- -APRIL 6, 2010- -7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:35 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 Gilmore 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.] (*10-155 CC/ARRA/*10-15 CIC) Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 3, 2010; and the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meetings of March 16, 2010. Approved. (ARRA) Recommendation to Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council, BSA Sea Scouts, Ancient Mariner Regatta. Accepted. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION (10-156 CC/ARRA/10-16 CIC) Update on SunCal The Interim City Manager/Executive Director and Deputy City Manager – Development Services gave a brief presentation. In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson’s inquiry about what is meant by negotiating a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) based on prior efforts, the Deputy City Manager – Development Services stated the City was in negotiations with SunCal on the DDA based on the plan proposed in the initiative; negotiations stopped when the initiative failed; until the City has a pro forma and defined project description, the City cannot negotiate on aspects of the DDA; aspects of the DDA, including transfer provisions, force majeure, and term, can be negotiated without knowing the actual financial deal or project Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 6, 2010 2 description. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether staff is waiting on the pro forma; further inquired whether SunCal is working on the pro forma. The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded staff is waiting and has requested the pro forma. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a time frame when the document will be provided, to which the Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded staff has not been given a specific time frame for when the information will be provided. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) expires, to which the Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded July 20. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the time line does not seem adequate to put things in proper perspective; a whole lot of work has not been presented to staff for analysis; it [the document submitted by SunCal] seems very incomplete and does not appear close to an “A” paper. The Deputy City Manager – Development Services stated staff would be meeting with SunCal on Thursday and would be requesting information. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan provided a handout; stated when the City started negotiating with SunCal, the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) was used as the baseline to make determinations regarding the number of residences, commercial use and various land use issues; the handout breaks down the PDC, the Measure B Specific Plan that was voted down [February 2, 2010], and the modified Optional Entitlement Application (OEA); the OEA could generate more residential units than the Measure B Specific Plan because of the Density Bonus, which was not requested in the [Measure B] Specific Plan; that he compared the PDC and the residential project grew 144% under the modified OEA; the PDC included 2,116 residential units; the maximum SunCal could have [under the modified OEA] is 5,162, which is a substantial growth; in the commercial area, 3.4 million [square feet in the PDC] has been moved up to 4.6 million square feet [in the modified OEA], which is a 34% increase according to his figures; questioned whether the [modified OEA] path is repeating the [Measure B] Specific Plan, which is not what the City requested; further stated even though the modified OEA is going to be Measure A compliant, the project is incompatible with the 2006 PDC; the direction seems bizarre and out of line with what the voters voted against; everything goes up; there are more houses than the [Measure B] Specific Plan; the details of the plan are so important at this stage; there are only a couple of months to put the project together, Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 6, 2010 3 which is a concern. The Deputy City Manager – Development Services stated staff would review the comparison [submitted by Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan]. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated there has been a lot of discussion around the issue of transparency and disclosure; sharing information in a public forum is not necessarily standard operating practice; the Alameda Point project is not normal for Alameda; the City is trying to come up with the mechanism and type of reporting out that can be done regularly [at City Council meetings] every two weeks; stated that she would read a letter that she would send tomorrow as a follow up to Frank Faye’s presentation on March 16. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the offer constitutes a proposed change to the current ENA; stated that he believes the Council voted on whether SunCal was willing to change the restrictions in the ENA regarding what is proprietary; nothing is different unless a modified ENA is presented to Council. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the letter asks for additional clarification to provide the City with a clear understanding of what SunCal is willing to release; stated [Mr. Faye’s] comments last time in the public forum indicated that SunCal wants to release information, but has caveats regarding proprietary information in terms of competition, which is a legitimate request; there are still questions about pro forma information; the pro forma includes a proprietary model; more information is needed in order to proceed with an amendment to the ENA; submitted and read the letter for the record; stated the last paragraph focuses on discussions regarding documenting predevelopment costs; the City is following up in writing on other requests, which are more complicated and comprehensive than just the details between D.E. Shaw and SunCal and the proprietary models used to calculate their pro forma; the City does not want to take the risk and assume everything else is transparent; listing what should not be disclosed might be easier; staff is trying to narrow down what transparency means; now that the OEA is moving forward, the City will look at new pro forma, which will have certain assumptions on Return on Investment; the City does not want to assume SunCal is willing to put the information in the public forum. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated assuming SunCal comes forward with a pro forma and says it is disclosable, inquired whether staff is anticipating that the City would handle disclosure or if SunCal would provide a copy or disk for the public when submitting documents; stated there would be less room for misunderstanding if SunCal indicates a document should be disclosed at the time the document is submitted. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she agrees it has to be the later Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 6, 2010 4 [SunCal providing a copy or for the public]; after an operating pro forma is submitted, time is spent in negotiations addressing details, such as impact fees; the process is dynamic, not linear; negotiations are not done in a vacuum; things change; the question is what to do for updates; logistics can be challenging and need to be thought through. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there are two issues going forward: what is disclosable and how is it disclosable; the community has been interested in the underpinnings of Measure B; the other issue is what prior documents SunCal will disclose, which might be more straight forward; that she assumes some of the prior documents are now static. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated in some cases, the documents are now irrelevant; stated rather than staff taking the risk of defining what is and is not [confidential], SunCal should say what is and is not [confidential]. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the City needs to seek clarification on the logistics of how information is received and distributed; there needs to be critical thinking about what is in the City’s best interest as it negotiates with the Navy; confusion could be created unnecessarily; an example is calculation of conveyance price. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Councilmember/Board Member/ Commissioner Gilmore asking for the static stuff [prior documents] is important; the public has asked for said information. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the letter is being provided to ensure that the Council/Board/Commission understands staff is following up and trying to get clarification about disclosure, which sounds good on the surface until digging through the details and thinking strategically; the letter is also being provided to ensure that the City is not deciding what is and what is not disclosable and confidential. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether staff plans to provide an update every two weeks, to which the Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded very short fact sheets would be provided to avoid hypothetical and incorrect assumptions. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal knows about the item being on the agenda. The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded staff discussed what aspects of the conversation [between SunCal and staff] would be made public; stated staff wanted to ensure that SunCal agreed about what would be reported out publicly and indicated reporting would be made to the Council and public. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether having a SunCal representative present to answer Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 6, 2010 5 questions makes sense. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded SunCal [representatives] can speak, if they want to. Speaker: Philip Tribuzio, Alameda, submitted letter. In response to Mr. Tribuzio’s comments, Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Interim City Manager/ Executive Director should be able to give an update on the City’s efforts regarding America’s Cup at the next Council meeting. ORAL REPORTS (ARRA) Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of March 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the March 4 RAB meeting, including on- going remediation efforts: The Building 5 storm drain sewer lines leading up to the sea plane lagoon are being removed; the infrastructure did not match the drawings; radioactive sediments were found in a number of storm drains beyond the drains that are being removed; the Navy is opening up a new Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA). Ground water contamination clean up is being done under Building 5 using soil vapor extraction. The RAB had a long discussion about a benzene naphthalene plume under the Marina Village housing that is being remediated. He did not attend the April meeting, but would attend the May meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.