Loading...
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