Contents
3 sections01 Roll call, consent, and amending the Safeway agreement captions 1–14
0:00:00foreign [Music] call into order the October 17 2011 special edu special El Cerrito Municipal Services Corporation meeting and I'd like to have you call the roll please I'm director benicini here Dr Abelson here director Lyman here director Hannon um Vice chair Jones here and notine
0:00:30chair Chang and director Pincus are absent correct is there uh any staff or board communication hearing none uh oral communication for from the public no speaker cards okay thank you there's no presentations so we'll go to a move adoption of the consent calendar
0:00:58second to move the second to approve the consent calendar all those in favor aye aye opposed motion carries there's no public hearing I'd like the city clerk to announce the next agenda item please yep policy item 6A Amendment of the tri-party agreement with Safeway
0:01:20Incorporated thank you there is a staff report good evening again I am I'm here to um now present on the amendment to the tri-party agreement um I'm here to ask that you adopt a resolution approving Amendment of the triparty agreement which was originally between the Redevelopment agency's
0:01:44Safeway and Target it was subsequently assigned to the municipal Services Corporation and with this amendment would be partially assigned to property Development Centers and this amendment is only regarding those provisions of the of the original agreement that
0:01:59relate to the Hill Street parcel on the corner of Hill in San Pablo um through that original tri-party agreement Safeway agreed to transfer to the Redevelopment agency a parcel that was about an acre at that corner of Hill Street in San Pablo earlier this year just as Safeway Was preparing to
0:02:17transfer that property to the Redevelopment agency there was uncertainty regarding the possible elimination of the agency and so the agency assigned its rights and obligations under that agreement to the municipal Services Corporation ultimately the state legislation
0:02:34um would require payment by the city in order to continue Redevelopment and the city and the agency don't currently have sufficient funds to do so um in light of the also in light of the current economic uncertainty related to developing the parcel for the corporation to be able to develop the
0:02:53parcel um the corporation in Safeway are now considering amending that agreement the significant changes would be that the corporation would assign its interest in the agreement to property Development Centers which is a again a subsidiary of Safeway and PDC would make a payment to
0:03:11the MSC of 1.85 million dollars um there are other aspects of that agreement that only involve Safeway and PDC as they make their property transfer separately the corporation would assume responsibility for widening Hill Street which was a mitigation on the original
0:03:27Safeway project and PDC would make a cash payment 350 000 for that widening the MSC would indemnify Safeway and PDC in the situation that the city might change that mitigation or determine it's not necessary or if the MSC failed to implement it um and the corporation Safeway and PDC are
0:03:50all also acknowledging that the city can use the greenway contribution that was originally made by Safeway in order to improve the greenway Put The Pedestrian path on Safeway's property which was in the original plans and then also make pedestrian connections to the BART
0:04:07station and widen Hill Street if necessary um the payment from PDC would be made to the municipal Services Corporation on January 5th and in keeping with the corporation's obligation to the agency it would make that payment to the Redevelopment agency which the agency could then use to fund
0:04:26the city's payment to um the state to keep the Redevelopment agency um alive should the state Supreme Court decide that that's still a possibility so um if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them and the Redevelopment Council Karen Tiedeman is here as well
The October 17, 2011 special meeting of the El Cerrito Municipal Services Corporation was called to order and the roll called: Directors Rebecca Benassini (captioned "benicini"), Janet Abelson and Greg Lyman and Vice Chair Bill Jones answered "here"; the roll call for Director Scott Hanin (captioned "Hannon") is captioned only "director Hannon um", with no reply recorded. Chair Ann Chang and Director Karen Pinkos (captioned "Pincus") were noted as absent. There were no board or staff communications, no speaker cards and no presentations. The consent calendar was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote, and there was no public hearing.
The city clerk announced policy item 6A, an amendment of the tri-party agreement with Safeway. Staff, presenting “again” that evening, asked the board to adopt a resolution approving the amendment. The agreement was originally between the Redevelopment Agency, Safeway and Target, was later assigned to the corporation, and with this amendment would be partially assigned to Property Development Centers (PDC), which staff described as a subsidiary of Safeway; it concerns only the provisions on the Hill Street parcel at the corner of Hill and San Pablo. Under the original agreement Safeway was to transfer that parcel, about an acre, to the agency. Earlier in the year, just as Safeway was preparing to do so, uncertainty over the possible elimination of the agency led it to assign its rights and obligations to the corporation. Staff said the state legislation would ultimately require a payment by the city to continue redevelopment, which the city and agency do not currently have sufficient funds to make, and in light of that and of the economic uncertainty about developing the parcel, the corporation and Safeway were considering the amendment.
The significant changes: the corporation would assign its interest to PDC, and PDC would pay the corporation $1.85 million. The corporation would take responsibility for widening Hill Street, a mitigation of the original Safeway project, with PDC making a cash payment of $350,000 for it, and would indemnify Safeway and PDC if the city changed that mitigation, found it unnecessary, or if the corporation failed to carry it out. All parties would acknowledge that the city can use Safeway's original greenway contribution to improve the greenway, put the pedestrian path on Safeway's property as in the original plans, make pedestrian connections to the BART station, and widen Hill Street if necessary. PDC's payment would be made on January 5th; in keeping with the corporation's obligation to the agency, the corporation would pass it to the Redevelopment Agency, which could then fund the city's payment to the state to keep the agency “alive should the state Supreme Court decide that that's still a possibility.” Redevelopment counsel Karen Tiedeman was present for questions.
Outcome CarriedConsent calendar approved by voice vote.
02 Greenway priority, no new entitlements, and the vote captions 15–22
0:04:45questions uh just just one clarification question that's noted in the staff report I just want to repeat what it says and just confirm the understanding of it uh the the Green Bay contribution the 487 thousand dollars it's noted in the staff report is uh what I would what
0:05:00I would say is prioritized for the improvements to The Greenway uh on the greenway between Hill and Blake including The Pedestrian path and pedestrian pedestrian improvements um between Safeway and the BART station and only if there are funds left over after those prioritized improvements are made
0:05:18would those funds be made available for a potential Hill Street widening that made other mitigation exactly okay just want to confirm that the priority for those funds is the greenway and only under circumstances where there's excess funding available may they be
0:05:32transferred to another type of mitigation on Hill Street and there was a shared interest in making sure that the greenway was was done to the level that everyone wants it to be you know in keeping with the nice new safe store excellent thank you no uh yeah I just want to make sure that
0:05:53again the record is complete and that the fact that the decisions we're making tonight does not um make any pass any judgments about what developments will go on at the Hill Street parcel um that there is an existing SQL document that does analyze some development at the Hill Street parcel
0:06:11and that our decisions tonight is not you know impinging that previous analysis nor embellishing it or adding to it in any way that's right it doesn't it doesn't give PDC any certain entitlements and it doesn't impinge on the city's ability to condition development there great thank
0:06:29you anyway Hannah any questions okay thank you very much any public comment no speakers no speakers therefore bring it back here either further discussion or emotion I'm happy to make a motion I move resolution of the city of the El Cerrito Municipal Services Corporation
0:06:55board approving the amendment of a tri-party agreement with Safeway Inc and property Development Centers related to the property located at the corner of Hill Street and San Pablo Avenue second it's been moved and seconded on the motion all those in favor aye aye opposed
A director asked staff to confirm the staff report's reading of the $487,000 greenway contribution (captioned "487 thousand dollars"): that it is prioritized for improvements on the greenway between Hill and Blake, including the pedestrian path and pedestrian improvements between Safeway and the BART station, and that only if funds are left over after those would they be available for a possible Hill Street widening or other mitigation. Staff answered “exactly” and added that there was a shared interest in making sure the greenway was done to the level everyone wants.
A director asked to make the record complete that the night's decisions pass no judgment on what development will go on the Hill Street parcel: an existing CEQA document (captioned "SQL document") analyzes some development there, and the decision neither impinges on that analysis nor adds to it. Staff agreed: “it doesn't give PDC any certain entitlements and it doesn't impinge on the city's ability to condition development there.” Director Hanin (captioned "Hannah") was asked for questions, and there was no public comment.
A director moved the resolution of the board “approving the amendment of a tri-party agreement with Safeway Inc and property Development Centers related to the property located at the corner of Hill Street and San Pablo Avenue”; it was seconded and carried unanimously.
Outcome CarriedunanimousTri-party agreement amendment approved unanimously.
03 A conflict of interest policy, and adjournment captions 23–26
0:07:12motion carries unanimously next agenda item please item 6B adoption of the conflict of interest policy I'll keep this very short um this um this uh conflict of interest policy is to ensure that the MSC is complying with the California corporations code for nonprofits and
0:07:38um we'll demonstrate to the IRS the msc's compliance with that code in the application for taxes instead tax exempt status great thank you questions no public comment no speakers see none uh looking for emotion on this I'll move please first and in honor women's
0:08:02suffrage centennial celebration I move resolution of the board of directors of the El Cerrito Municipal Services Corporation adopting a conflict of interest policy second is there a second oh I'm sorry I was being fast yes all those in favor aye opposed motion carries and with that
0:08:24I'd like to adjourn the meeting of the El Cerrito Municipal Services Corporation thank you for coming
Item 6B was adoption of a conflict of interest policy. Staff, keeping it “very short,” said the policy ensures the corporation complies with the California Corporations Code for nonprofits and will demonstrate that compliance to the IRS in its application for tax-exempt status. There were no questions and no public speakers.
A director moved the resolution of the board adopting the policy “in honor women's suffrage centennial celebration”; after a second, the motion carried by voice vote, and the meeting of the El Cerrito Municipal Services Corporation was adjourned.
Outcome CarriedConflict of interest policy adopted by voice vote; no opposition recorded.