body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:25 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 5, 2008.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of November 18, 2008.
2-C. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 2, 2008.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Mariusz Lewandowski dba
Woodmasters at Alameda Point.
2-E. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Alameda Soccer Club at
Alameda Point.
2-F. Authorize the Sale of Four Boston Whalers to NRC for $44,500.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions:
0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of SunCal's Draft Redevelopment Master Plan.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, addressed several topics
actively discussed in the community and clarified that tonight's update is for information only,
neither staff nor SunCal has requested formal action on the Master Plan. It is an opportunity for
the community to comment on the draft Master Plan and for the ARRA Board to provide
feedback to SunCal. Because SunCal's plan is not consistent with the City's charter, as it
proposes a mix of residential structures that include multi-family rental and condo projects, this
master plan can only be approved by a vote of the people. SunCal anticipates placing its plan
on the ballot for the communities' consideration in November of this year, and the ENA requires
SunCal to notify the City no later than April 30 if it plans to proceed with the ballot initiative.
Tonight's presentation is part of the ongoing community dialogue that will continue over the next
18 months, as the City and SunCal negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)
for the long term redevelopment of Alameda Point. Two key issues have been the focus of
discussion: 1) the concept of a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust for Alameda Point, and",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,2,"2) the amount of the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) investment in the Alameda
Point project and whether or not that investment of redevelopment dollars adversely impacts the
City's general fund which is responsible for financing critical city services.
Ms. Potter discussed the Presidio conveyance model - a transfer from military ownership via
special legislation to the National Park Service and was not subject to BRAC requirements - it
was determined that the same conveyance model is not feasible for Alameda Point. Alameda
Point is subject to BRAC, was previously screened for other federal agency uses, was screened
pursuant to the McKinney-Vento act for homeless uses, and is required to be conveyed at fair
market value for private ownership and reuse. The ARRA is working with the Navy to negotiate
a conveyance term sheet to transfer the property and provide for its ultimate reuse as a mixed-
use community that generates jobs, provides housing for all incomes, and opens up the
waterfront and creates new recreational opportunities for Alameda and the region. To achieve
that goal, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SunCal.
Ms. Potter addressed the issue of tax increment funds, clarifying that there cannot be a pledge
of tax increment funds without a DDA, approved by the City Council and CIC in public following
a public hearing, therefore, any approval of tax increment funding will only happen after input
and participation from the community. If tax increment funds are raised through the sale of tax
increment bonds, those bonds are secured and repaid solely by tax increment funds generated
in the Alameda Point Redevelopment Project Area (APIP), and in no way obligate the City's
general fund. Based on current projections of the property value to be created by the build-out
of the master plan, staff anticipates that a maximum of $184 million of tax increment will be
created over the life of the project. This number is well short of the $700 million being
referenced in the community. It should also be noted that large portion of the $184 million is
restricted to the production of affordable housing.
Furthermore, several years ago, the City Council adopted a resolution stating that all base reuse
activities must pay for themselves and be fiscally neutral to the City's general Fund. The
Council recognized the task of integrating former military property into the larger Alameda
community would have a cost in terms of a need for the increase police and fire services, more
demand on Parks and public libraries, and increased maintenance of new roads and
infrastructure, and that cost should be borne by the new development. SunCal's draft Master
Plan is supported by a Business Plan that provides for fiscal neutrality.
Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager, who presented the
draft Master Plan via Powerpoint presentation. Following the presentation, there were several
speakers who discussed various issues about the draft Master Plan.
Member deHaan is concerned about some issues in the draft Master Plan, specifically regarding
the plans for residential development, the sea level rising, and transportation issues. He also
discussed the plans for the Sports Complex and that the plan has not changed, except for the
price. He continues to have strong reservations.
In response to public comment, Member Gilmore asked SunCal to explain its financial viability,
the effect of the bankruptcies of other projects, predevelopment funding and where that money
comes from, what happens during the predevelopment period if SunCal doesn't come up with
the money, and how SunCal sees the financing unfolding once we get to a DDA.
Mr. Keliher explained that throughout ENA period, SunCal is required to reimburse the City for
any expenditures, and deposit money to spend on predevelopment dollars. This is done every
quarter and is audited. Once we get through the ENA period, and the DDA period, and",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,3,"determine how to actually finance the project, once the land is conveyed, there are several
different mechanisms, including debt & equity. With regard to the bankruptcies on the other
projects that SunCal was the operator on, not necessarily the owner of, most all of those were
Lehman projects. When Lehman filed bankruptcy and decided to not fund SunCal, SunCal
decided, involuntarily, to throw each of those projects into bankruptcy in hopes of forcing
Lehman to start to fund those. These projects are independently financed and structured and
have absolutely nothing to do with the Alameda Point project.
Member Gilmore reiterated the concern regarding SunCall's ability to fund predevelopment
expenses. Mr. Keliher explained that if SunCal defaults under the ENA and doesn't perform, it
is simply over. He further stated that, to date, SunCal has deposited all the funds. Both
Member Gilmore and Mr. Keliher clarified and confirmed that the ARRA is not obligated in any
way to reimburse SunCal for the predevelopment funds that have been spent.
There was discussion about the historic structures. Mr. Keliher is in agreement with the Board
that it's not the wisest move to proactively rip down the structures, and that SunCal will work
with staff on working out a process of evaluating the best direction.
Member Matarrese offered comments for consideration, including requesting detail of
commercial space, and what impact of those spaces would be with regard to traffic and truck
routes, and the industrial-type uses. Member Tam also asked about industrial uses, mixed-use
and residential. Peter Calthorpe described another similar project in San Jose where there was
a
balance of use in the commercial, civic, and retail areas. He stated that industrial
development needs to be treated in special way, explaining that it has not yet been determined
whether there are industrial users that are appropriate for this site and that should be part of the
mix.
Member Tam asked about the BCDC sea level rise, and the 24"" that one speaker mentioned.
Mr. Keliher responded that he has heard various levels, but that no one has come out with
specific number to design to, an issue that SunCal does not want to ignore. Member Tam
stated that we are at the point of our best and last opportunity to provide an economic stimulus
package without public subsidies or a tax on our general fund. This draft Master Plan produces
economic growth, a realistic transit system, and that the phasing will make it flexible enough to
respond to varying economic conditions, whether it's 15 years, or the next 20-30 yrs. Member
Tam stated her appreciation to staff and SunCal that the plan has been vetted very thoroughly
with the community.
Member Gilmore asked what would happen if the City breached its obligations under the ENA.
Donna Mooney, Asst. General Counsel, replied that the ENA is a contract and if the City doesn't
fulfill an obligation to it, it would be considered a breach of contract. SunCal would have a legal
remedy to this breach, which could include asking a court to make us come back and continue
negotiating, or it could be that the contract is terminated and we give back the $1 million
deposit.
Member Matarrese clarified that tax increment bonds are sold based on tax increment at the
time the bond is sold, not based on the development for which those bonds will spur. Ms. Potter
confirmed and explained that, typically, when you go to the market with debt and desire to raise
money through the sale of bonds, the project has to be at least three years into its development
so that the underwriters and folks interested in purchasing the bonds have an expectation of the
track record and then projections about the increment that will be generated over the life of the
project.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,4,"At Chair Johnson's request, Ms. Potter summarized the process and milestones of the ENA so
that the public understands that this is not the end of the process.
This report was for information only and no action was taken by the Board.
3-B. VA/Navy Presentation Regarding the Navy/VA Federal-to-Federal Transfer at Former
NAS Alameda.
Ms. Potter gave a brief overview about the 600 acres on western portion of Alameda Point
property. The Navy and VA have been in discussion for many years about its plans for the
development of the portion of the wildlife refuge property. She introduced Claude Hutchinson of
the VA. Mr. Hutchinson gave his presentation via Powerpoint to the Board and community,
summarizing the status of the fed-to-fed transfer The plans include a 50-acre above-ground
columbarium, a site for a VA outpatient clinic, and a non VA-owned hospital. Other presenters
included Patrick McKay of the Navy BRAC office; Dr. Ron Chun, VA outpatient clinic site
manager; Don Reiker, National Cemetary Assoc. regional director; Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset
Manager of the VA; and Jayni Alsep, the VA's environmental consultant from EDAW.
Chair Johnson clarified for the public that the ARRA is not a part of the transaction between the
Navy and the VA, and has no decision-making power in this transaction. She stated her
appreciation to the VA on its presentation and all its efforts for community involvement. Chair
Johnson also stated that although the ARRA has no control over this issue, we might be able to
cooperate if the VA was willing to look at other areas of the base.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of December 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese stated that the Dec. 4 RAB meeting was 1/2 Christmas party and 1/2 highlights
of the coming year's projects.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-11-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 2010.
Member Matarrese moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair deHaan
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Consider Request from Alameda Point Collaborative to Support their Community
Planning Efforts by Reimbursing Unpaid SunCal Consultant Expenses and
Collateralizing a $50,000 Loan for Relocation Planning Studies Should Funds from
Private Development Be Unavailable within 36 Months.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Johnson inquired if the expenditure is considered a predevelopment cost for SunCal, to
which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services answered in the affirmative. Chair
Johnson inquired if staff has made efforts to have SunCal fulfill their commitment for payment.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the Alameda Point
Collaborative (APC) has tried diligently, without success, to have SunCal fulfill its commitment.
Chair Johnson recommended continued efforts to pursue SunCal and inquired why funds from
the SunCal escrow account are not being used to pay this bill. The Executive Director
explained that the predevelopment escrow account is for obligations that SunCal has to the City
and that the terms of the escrow account do not allow the City to direct the escrow agent to pay
any invoices. Also, the City cannot interfere in the contractual relationship between SunCal and
APC.
Doug Biggs, Executive Director of APC further explained that he has contacted SunCal multiple
times to request payment, and the responses provided no resolution to the problem and
payments have not been made. Chair Johnson asked Mr. Biggs if APC has filed a lawsuit
against SunCal to collect the funds owed. Mr. Biggs explained that the contract SunCal
required APC sign has a no-lawsuit clause and that APC would have to go through mediation.
Chair Johnson inquired whether APC has demanded mediation pursuant to its contract, to
which Mr. Biggs responded in the negative. Chair Johnson recommended that APC go through
the binding arbitration process.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-11-03,2,"Member Matarrese commented that SunCal had no problem spending approximately $50,000
on an election mailer a month ago. Member Matarrese supports APC's request, but would like
to require that APC start the proceedings on their contractual remedy to the outstanding bill.
Member Gilmore requested an update and report on the status of the predevelopment costs,
and of the ARRA budget. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Member
Gilmore and the Board that staff will incorporate the ARRA budget and Predevelopment costs
information into the update/staff report that will be presented to the Board in January.
Vice Chair deHaan inquired how the APC will pay back a $50,000 loan. Mr. Biggs explained
that the Project Implementation Loan (PIL) is from the Corporation for Supportive Housing.
Traditionally, these loans are paid off by development fees, but since the development plans for
Alameda Point are uncertain at this time, APC is asking the City to back them up.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the predevelopment planning
cost will be wrapped into the total cost of the project and financed through every available
funding source to make the consolidation and relocation work.
Speakers: Jon Spangler spoke in support of APC's request.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the recommendation to collateralize $50,000 for
the pursuit of the planning study, with the requirement that the APC formally invoke their
remedy in their contract in pursuit of reimbursement by SunCal. Member Matarrese also
requested that the work done by the contractor be under public domain so that it is not
proprietary to APC since it is being underwritten by the ARRA. Vice Chair deHaan
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of October 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the October 7th meeting but will attend the RAB meeting on
Nov. 4. Member Matarrese provided comments on Dr. Russell's highlights, stating that most of
the activities described are actual remediation activities. He called particular attention to the
record of decision on Site 2 which is the southwest portion of the base. There was discussion of
a cap and cover for that contamination. Member Matarrese would like Dr. Russell to
recommend a strategy to make sure anything that is radioactive is removed from Site 2.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
6-A. Presentation on Request for Qualifications for a Resource Team for Redevelopment
of Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief summary on steps staff is
taking to move the going forward process. In the next week or two, staff will send out a Request
for Qualifications (RFQ) for land use planning, urban design, sustainable green design and
infrastructure planning, civil engineering, transportation planning, fiscal impact land use",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-11-03,3,ARRA Secretary,AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Vice Chair Tam presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Chair Johnson arrived at 7:52 p.m. (during item 3-B).
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 4, 2007.
2-B. Approve Three-Year Sublease for Sustainable Technologies at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Waiver of License Fee for Alameda Unified School District Student Activities.
2-D. Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident
Management, Inc. to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes, o noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation by Friends of the Wildlife Refuge - An Update of Their Activities at
Alameda Point.
A power point presentation was made by Leora Feeney, Chair of FAWR, and Eli Saddler,
Conservation Director for Golden Gate Audubon, to update the Board and community on the
resources at the Alameda proposed Wildlife Refuge to ensure the resources are protected while
transfer negotiations continue. Eli Saddler thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the
update and encouraged them to do whatever possible to protect the resource. He expressed
concern about the current plans that have been proposed that are within the area that was
considered in the Biological Opinion. They want to continue to work cooperatively with the VA
to protect the resource and honor the veterans at the same time.
Member deHaan commented on how nice it is to look at the maturity of the site, referring to the
photos included in the presentation. He asked if the resources, the ponds and wildlife area, are
getting to a better state. Ms. Feeney replied that the ponds are wonderful, but that Alameda Point
and the breakwater is vulnerable. She discussed the increase in the Pelican numbers, and the use
of the willows by migratory birds, including a hawk, one winter. Ms. Feeney also mentioned
how far the recognition of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge stretches, explaining that two college
students chose the Refuge site for their graduate work, one from Los Angeles, and the other from",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,2,"Toronto, Canada. Also, the first magazine issued by the National Wildlife Refuge Association
included an segment on Alameda and asked the FAWR to be an affiliate of theirs.
Member deHaan asked how successful the mating pairs have been up to this point. Ms. Feeney
summarized the progress of the lease tern colony, explaining that Alameda has the sixth largest
colony in the world, but that we are isolated from the other colonies (most in Southern Ca).
Member Matarrese really enjoyed the pictures included in the presentation and appreciates the
fragility of the ecosystem of the site. He discussed another upcoming item on the Agenda, Site
1, an uncharacterized waste pit which is adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge, and the importance of
addressing the clean-up issues and how it relates to the water-borne life of the refuge. Mr.
Saddler added that once construction begins at Alameda Point, it would inevitably impact how
the clean-up is managed.
Vice Chair Tam asked if they have seen some of the latest conceptual plans from the VA. Mr.
Saddler said that he and Ms. Feeney met with the VA and were able to see three versions of
proposed plans. They were concerned that the new concepts proposes the area between the
proposed Golf course and the refuge site as a buffer zone, but also expressed their desire to stay
engaged with the VA and keep things in perspective as to what's best for Alameda, what's best
for the Veterans and what's best for the wildlife. Member Matarrese clarified that the VA is a
fed-to-fed transfer, and not the Alameda development.
Member deHaan recommended the Board receive periodic updates of the VA's proposals and
requested a briefing. Member Matarrese agreed and asked whether the updates can be obtained
officially. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that there is no official proposal
available yet from the VA. Member Matarrese requested that when there is an official proposal,
he would like the Board to see it. The Board agreed.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - oral report
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, reported that the VA is
currently engaged in informal Section 7 consultations with the USF&W and have a potential site
plan, but there are no additional details beyond that.
Member deHaan asked what role the ARRA would have, since the property would be a fed-to-
fed transfer. Ms. Potter explained that it has been properly characterized as a fed-to-fed transfer,
and, as such, the VA would work directly with the Navy on the conveyance of the property. This
opportunity is one that the VA would be interested in exploring because the property would be
conveyed to them for free; different than the conveyance we're involved in for the remainder of
the property. ARRA and staff would be involved at an informal level, but because the
development is adjacent, we have interest in some issues like the submerged lands adjacent to
dry lands. Ms Potter stated that staff would continue to consult and work with the VA, the
USF&W, and the Navy, but key issues are hammered out at the federal level.
Member deHaan discussed his understanding that the USF&W made a claim to property, said
that they would be the governing body and provide financially, but they could not fulfill their
commitment and this is why the Navy is looking for a different avenue. Ms. Potter explained
that, in the USF&W's own words, ""the status of refuge is at an impasse""; that they are unable to
reconcile their issues with the Navy regarding a fed-to-fed transfer, and that their key concern is
future liability regarding environmental cleanup. They have not perfected the transfer
arrangement, so the Navy has been in discussions with the VA in lieu of USF&W. Because
there are endangered species on the property, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,3,"consultation to make sure that whatever the VA does, they cannot harm the endangered species.
Ms. Potter clarified that the USF&W are not pursuing ownership of the property at this time and
that if the Navy goes forward with the property transfer to the VA, the Navy will retain clean-up
obligations for the property.
Vice Chair Tam questioned what SunCal's follow-up with the VA has been to this point
regarding the site, if their dialogue with the VA includes potential alternative sites. Ms Potter
responded that SunCal has had one additional follow-up meeting with the VA and that SunCal is
aware of their need ultimately, and that this issue is a key item on SunCal's Project Master
Schedule.
It is noted that Chair Johnson arrived at this point in the discussion (7:52 p.m.).
Ms. Potter gave her update on SunCal, including that the first two community meetings have
been scheduled, the first on 10/24 at Mastick Senior Center. The agenda for this meeting
includes introduction of SunCal and their partners to the community, framing the project and
their approach to the project, and site constraints. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled on
12/12 at the O'club to solicit feedback from community regarding the range of development
scenarios, and their key focus to continue surveying property and preparing to do sampling - the
technical work to support the land-planning effort.
Member Matarrese asked if we're on track with zoning issues. Ms. Potter explained that she has
prepared an off-agenda report discussing that the status of the public trust designation protects us
more than locking in zoning, and recommends that staff not do anything ahead of the entitlement
process. FM requested that this item be agendized.
Chair Johnson asked if the mortgage crisis is a risk to SunCal. Ms. Potter said that SunCal has
reassured they are not impacted by that crisis. Chair Johnson wants to be kept updated of
SunCal's activities regarding the project.
This report was for information only. No motion or action was required.
3-C. Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation
Restoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area).
Ms. Potter summarized a letter sent to the EPA requesting additional investigative work be done
at IR Site 1. She explained that trenching activities are concluded at the site and key concerns
identified: no intact drums were found, but the waste had low-level radioactivity. The cost of
digging up and hauling off the landfill is very expensive so staff's recommendation is to take the
Navy's approach outlined in their draft ROD to cap the landfill.
Member Matarrese had deep concerns about the radioactive and hazardous waste and
groundwater migration of the contaminants out of the landfill. Dr. Peter Russell addressed the
concerns and explained that the landfill was closed and no waste put in for 50 years, with a good
deal of monitoring and investigation, it appears not to be any migration of contents. Dr. Russell
further explained that 11 trenches were dug and there were no drums or containers whatsoever,
except for one broken which was consistent with the Navy's supposition that what drums were
placed in there were crushed. It is unlikely that there are many, if any, drums. Another issue
was the volume of waste - the Navy over-estimated by a factor of two or three, so accordingly,
they inflated the cost by two or three. Their feasibility study did not consider radioactivity in
landfill, and now that there is, we do not have an argument that the cost for the removal is at the
Navy's estimate.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,4,"Member Matarrese motioned to send a letter that is policy in nature requesting that the
Navy excavate and remove the contents of the radioactive contaminated landfill, and
dispense with institutional controls on surrounding properties that are deemed to be
cleaned.
The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, o noes, and 0 abstentions.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
The RAB met regularly and again on Sept. 28th to discuss six alternatives for the draft feasibility
study for IR Site 32. Their recommendation endorses a chemical oxidation and institutional
controls for that site to alleviate groundwater contaminations.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese was contacted by a member of boating industry regarding development in
Jack London Square that will displace their annual boat show in 2009. The representatives are
interested in another venue for the boat show and are looking at Alameda Point. Member
Matarrese expressed that this would be a great thing to pursue a boat show of that magnitude,
and that it would be an economic boom for our city. He requested a report when/if this can be
done.
Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said that ARRA staff has been in discussions with the
representatives of the boat show and will update the Board with information.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Have Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-03-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 5, 2008- 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:14 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Estuary Park
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The Navy's offer of a license, rather than a lease, and the ability of the Navy to terminate
the lecense on short notice was discussed. The City desired a lease, which would five the
City the right to use the premises for a longer period of time and would justify the
investment of City money in the park. The City will not pursue an agreement any more, at
this time.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties: ARRA and SCC Alameda Point LLC
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff provided an update on negotiations regarding Alameda Point. No action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:48
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Iruna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
March 5, 2008",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-03-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. February 1, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 4, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures for Special Legal
Counsel; Resolution Amending Resolution No. 002 Regarding the Powers and Authority
of the General Counsel.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out that the only difference between the City
Council policy and the ARRA policy is the unlawful detainer policy.
Approval of 2-A was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
Member Gilmore motioned for approval of 2-B as written, with the caveats to receive a
written report on unlawful detainers and revisit the policy in 6 months. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes -0;
Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of the Final Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, requested formal acceptance of the PDC. Acceptance of
the PDC represents an important step in completing some obligations made in ARRA's
agreement with the selected master developer, APCP: complete a plan with the help of the
Alameda community to identify the development opportunities at Alameda Point and the key
tradeoffs and challenges.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,2,"Page 2
As described in the plan, the PDC does not represent the FINAL development plan for Alameda
Point. It is a planning study with the basic message that to get through an entitlement process
and a planning process, and to actually see implementation will require some tough compromises
and decisions that have not yet been made. The PDC clarifies that when the important decisions
are made, all the necessary information will be available to the public and to ARRA. Important
issues are emphasized in the Next Steps chapter. The plan for the redevelopment of Alameda
Point will continue to evolve as we move through the entitlement process.
Member Daysog thanked staff for the memo provided by Darin Smith of Economic Planning
Systems (EPS) detailing the assumptions. He requested further sources, methodologies and
assumptions regarding information in Table 3 and in Table 4 - property taxes, assumptions in
terms of housing values, industrial and commercial, property transfer taxes. Member Daysog
explained that this information would be helpful for future generations of Alamedans to track the
fiscal health of this project.
There were several speakers on this item:
Birgitt Evans - represents the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS). Thanked
staff and Andrew Thomas for the PDC. Discussed concerns with removal of two seaplane
lagoon hangars (Bldgs. 11 & 12). Recommended construction of height-limited buildings to
preserve vista for future generations.
Elizabeth Krase, AAPS - thanked Andrew Thomas. Discussed concerns regarding the timetable
for the Preservation and Adaptive Reuse Studies, and the potential loss of the BOQ, Big Whites,
etc.
Joan Konrad - discussed importance of examining Measure A non-compliant alternative plan for
Alameda Point redevelopment and safe and easy walking distance to destinations - schools,
work and shopping.
Diane Lichtenstein - concerns about the constraints of Measure A. Reiterated that the PDC is
only a draft and wanted to emphasize the flexibility of the plans.
Helen Sause - commended Staff and the City on the PDC, stating that the public input has been
valuable. Discussed priority to see the development without restrictions of Measure A. Urged
ARRA to keep flexibility in development of the PDC and keep the alternative plan that would
permit AP to be developed in accordance with good planning principles.
Chair Johnson closed the public comment portion of this item.
Chair and Boardmembers thanked Andrew Thomas and the staff for the PDC. Member Gilmore
was particularly pleased with staff's response to public input and the Board's comments about
the Next Steps chapter. She emphasized that what's outlined in the Next Steps chapter gets
accomplished, yet not to tie ourselves down to a specific timeline, particularly since we don't yet
have the property. Chair Johnson agreed, stating that it was surprising how many residents don't",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,3,"Page 3
know that ARRA does not own the property yet. Member Matarrese repeated the notion of
ensuring ample time for dealing with Historic properties, having advanced notice for ARRA,
Planning, and the public - to understand what's ahead.
Member Daysog motioned for approval of this item. The motion was seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
3-B. Recommendation to Approve a 20-year Lease with the Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration (MARAD).
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager of DSD, presented the Board with the
lease, gave an overview of MARAD, a tenant on the base since 1997, and explained that the
lease negotiations have been going on since May 2002. The lease being presented included two
components: the lease combines the MARAD warehouse and pier uses.
In addition to generating, under this new lease, a proposed $1.8 M in the first two years with 3%
increases, MARAD is the largest electricity user in Alameda and responsible corporate citizens.
They' ve already spent $1M on dredging, an ARRA obligation, but MARAD put the money up
front. Chair Johnson discussed security fencing, possibilities of reconfiguring least intrusive
manner.
Member deHaan asked whether MARAD discussed possibilities of shouldering relocation of
Hornet and the different scenarios regarding the Hornet's location. Ms Banks replied that
MARAD couldn't make an initial investment and it is an obligation of ARRA, but that the 3%
increase in rent should pay for whatever decision is made. Member deHaan stated that MARAD
should strive to find dollars to relocate the Hornet, since it's to their benefit. Chair Johnson
suggested that MARAD may have better access to homeland security money.
Under the new lease, gross lease revenue for the first 2 years is 1.8M per year. Net is $800,000
to ARRA Chair Johnson requested a copy of pro forma. She also emphasized an important
attachment - Exhibit H - which outlines ARRA's obligations under the lease. Ms. Banks
explained that those obligations were negotiated down from the standard lease.
Member deHaan stated that MARAD is one of the best tenants at Alameda Point, but is
concerned about the 20 year cost to maintain the operation, and that they're not an asset for the
ambience of the development. Member Matarrese doesn't have a problem with MARAD being
here, recognizing that it's a multiple-use development; there is some industrial and commercial
use.
Chair Johnson expressed concern about a provision, in the MARAD lease, relating to Trident.
She questioned why they were intertwined, and why there is not separate, employer liability
insurance.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, explained that insurance is something that MARAD
and the Federal government can't get and it's in our interest to have this insurance in place.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,4,"Page 4
Mike Hampen, PM Realty Group, further explained that liability insurance of piers is required
whether there is a port manager or not. Ms. Banks said that the reference to Trident will be
removed, as there is no reference in naming the port manager in the agreement.
Member Matarrese requested an analysis on the risk assessment and liability of lease, stating that
staff and the City Attorney are being paid to review leases and contracts, not the responsibility of
the ARRA Board (to review leases, etc.). He recommended bringing this item back and the need
to keep MARAD as a tenant, to see the Navy in legacy.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Matarrese's request, stating she'd like a better definition of
what the potential expenses and risks are. She stated that MARAD is an excellent tenant, and we
don't want to lose them; we just need to understand the lease better. She also requested that the
Trident provision be completely separate and not included in the MARAD lease.
Member Gilmore expressed concern about the lease not being included in the packet for review.
She prefers to receive copies of complex documents and decide how deeply to look at the
documents or how much to rely on the staff report. Chair Johnson recommended that, at the
least, significant attachments (like Attachment H, etc.) be summarized in the staff report, or
be
included in the package.
Without a formal motion, all members agreed to continue this item to the March 1, 2006
ARRA meeting with a request for a more detailed analysis of the ARRA's risk assessment
and obligations under the MARAD lease.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave an overview of the Jan 5th meeting: The major item on the agenda was
the Petroleum Hydrocarbon Program update, highlighting the status and technical explanations
of the remediation taking place on sites spread across Phase 1 and several in Phase 3. He stated
that there was an amazing mass of contaminants being removed: jet fuel, gasoline, etc. The next
RAB meeting is Thursday, Feb 9.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan requested an update on the Tinker Ave. / Webster St. exchange, stating that it is
key to fully developing FISC.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,5,"Page 5
Member Matarrese reiterated the Dec. 2004 ARRA-approved intent of requesting all ARRA
leases (and licenses) come to ARRA, so they know what the arrangements are with tenants on
the property and to maintain their responsibility to the LIFOC.
Chair Johnson requested an update on the Hornet. Leslie Little, Development Services Director,
informed the Board that there is no lease negotiations ongoing at the time, and there has not been
an existing lease with the Hornet for 2 years. Ms. Little will provide a report to the Board at the
next meeting. Ms. Little reiterated that updates are provided to the ARRA in monthly financial
reports.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-02-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:15 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 6, 2009.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of January 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the January 7 RAB meeting, including a report of
Site OU-2C which has a contaminated discharge line under a slab in Bldg. 400. The RAB
recommends it be removed, but the Navy is citing potential compromise to the structural
integrity of building. The second highlight was a report on the block of cement in the seaplane
lagoon, to which the Navy made no comment. Member Matarrese would like a presentation and
technical summary from the Navy of cleanup activities and costs, including dollar figures,
completed to date. Member Matarrese stated that it is good for the community to understand
that remediation is an ongoing process. He will attend the next RAB meeting tomorrow (2/4).
Member Gilmore asked if it was requested of the Navy to substantiate their claim about the
structural integrity of Bldg. 400. Member Matarrese replied that a letter was sent to them with
that request.
Richard Bangert, speaker, supported the suggestion made by Member Matarrese calling for a
public presentation of the clean up activities at the base. He agreed that such a presentation
would benefit the community at large. He discussed the Record of Decision (ROD) document
for Site 1, explaining that it comprises 43,000 pages of data, emphasizing the need for the
community to have a deep understanding of the clean-up efforts. Mr. Bangert also
recommended that the regulatory agencies who oversee the clean-up be featured in the
presentation.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
03-03-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-02-03,2,"Chair Johnson agreed with Mr. Bangert that the regulatory agencies, including the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
Water board should participate in the presentation.
Chair Johnson further stated that the Board supports Member Matarrese's recommendation for
a public presentation regarding the remediation activities at Alameda Point.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were several speakers. Jean Sweeney suggested a before and after"" powerpoint
presentation of the clean-up sites.
Jim Sweeney agreed with Richard Bangert and Member Matarrese about a presentation to the
public. Mr. Sweeney encourages educating the public about remediation, the plan, and what
can be done realistically at Alameda Point.
Gretchen Lipow - attends RAB meetings, was impressed with the bright, talented members and
how they interact with the agencies. Ms. Lipow invites the public to observe these meetings,
stating that the group looks out for the communities' welfare.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair deHaan discussed the Special Election of Feb 2nd regarding Measure B. There were
14,000 votes cast - 85% NO and 15% YES.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
June Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:36 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Authorize Execution of a No-Cost Sublease for Alameda Development Corporation at
Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member Tam,
and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - O.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve the Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Disposition of the
Notices of Interest for the Homeless Accommodation/Public Benefit Conveyances for
the North Housing Parcel and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate the
Required Legally Binding Agreement
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief overview of the
item, stating that in November 2007, the Navy declared the North Housing Parcel, an additional
42 acre parcel, as surplus. The ARRA, as the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) is charged with
conducting the federal screening process, a mandated step before the Navy can dispose of
property. Three Notice of Interests (NOIs) and two requests for Public Benefit Conveyances
(PBC's) were reviewed in early September. The NOIs were analyzed against a number of criteria
including what project was being proposed, how well the project met unidentified needs of
homeless needs assessment, financial feasibility, and the organization's capacity to carry out the
project. One NOI from the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), didn't
meet the threshold requirement and was notified that they did not meet screening process. Of the
remaining two NOIs, the evaluation committee does not recommend moving forward with the
NOI received form Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) and Building Futures with Women and
Children (BFWC), to provide location for the Midway Shelter, in the event it loses it's lease
where currently located. There is a path forward to working with Navy on the existing location
of the shelter, which the Navy has committed to in writing to retain midway shelter in current
location. Also, the 42-acre site was not an appropriate location for a multi-service center, which
should be in central location accessible by public transit.
The committee is recommending the NOI received from the City Housing Authority, APC, and
BFWC for 120 units of permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless people, with the
recommendation to move forward at 90 units rather than 120 units.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,2,"The two PBCs received were from the City's Recreation and Park department and from Habitat
for Humanity for self-help housing. We are recommending the PBC from Rec and Park, and will
indicate our support for Habitat for Humanity for 20 to 30 units of self-help housing. The Habitat
for Humanity PBC is approved by the federal housing agency, HUD; and the Department of
Interior would approve the Rec and Park PBC.
The next step is to begin negotiating a Legally Binding Agreement (LBA). The LBA is an
agreement document that goes forward to HUD, along with our amendment to the Community
Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan), HUD reviews the Reuse Plan and makes the ultimate determination of
how well it meets the needs of homeless accommodation. We are scheduling two community
meetings in November, on the 3rd with the Planning Board, and on Nov. 24th on the amendment
to the Reuse Plan, and draft LBA at its Dec. 3 meeting. The statutory requirement is to get
everything to HUD in December.
Member Matarrese asked how HUD weighs different factors during their evaluation of the
proposals. Ms. Potter explained that typically, the screening process regulations are broadly
drafted in order to give local jurisdictions a lot of leeway and opportunity for the Reuse Plan to
meet their needs. What they are looking for is a balance of homeless accommodation, and what
they call ""other community goals"", in terms of job generation, economic development, housing,
and open space. Member Matarrese asked if there is a previous process which we were involved
in. Ms. Potter replied that the 1996 Community Reuse Plan was the last time we were involved
in that process. Member Matarrese informed staff and the Board that he just received a letter
from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regarding the remediation of site
where the Midway Shelter is located. The letter informed of DTSC's plan to evaluate the impact
of removing viscous material and widespread contaminated material from that site. Staff will
follow-up.
Chair Johnson called public speakers. Doug Biggs, Interim Executive Director of the APC spoke
in support of the city's recommendation. He discussed the homelessness crisis in today's
economy. Liz Varela, Executive Director of the BFWC, supports Doug Bigg's comments, and
appreciates the City's recommendation on the BFWC NOI and its efforts of relocating the
Midway Shelter.
Member deHaan asked staff to give a background on the remediation requirements and how the
Navy is going to address that. Ms. Potter explained that the south east corner of the North
Housing parcel, there is a plume which extends to that area and will be remediated. The Navy
has started remediation of the plume, and we made it clear when we put out the request that there
is an environmental issue. None of the proposals we received asked for property anywhere near
that site. There has been prior time-critical removal that has all been completed. Ms. Potter
added that there was no removal under hardscapes or roads, so anyone who will develop that site
has to take that in consideration.
Member Matarrese expressed concern that we should not move forward where uncalculated
liability for any unremediated land is passed on to any future to non-profit.
Member Matarrese motioned to provide direction that in the Community Reuse Plan and
in the negotiations of the LBA we include disclosure of significant liability of
uncharacterized contamination under hardscape and contamination beyond two feet, and
that we have these LBAs come back to ARRA. The motion was seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,3,"3-B. Report on Restoration Advisory Board Comment Letter on Installation Restoration
Site 1.
Ms. Potter summarized that at the ARRA meeting on September 10, the Board received several
letters regarding Site 1. Staff was directed to work with the environmental consultant, Dr. Peter
Russell, to prepare a response to RAB letters. The ARRA's position is that land fill should be
dug up and hauled off, this position has been consistent during the public comment process,
which is not concluded. A final draft Record of Decision (ROD) is due on Oct. 28th, which will
give us further opportunity to provide comments on the final draft ROD. However, as all of this
work has been going on, the results of the additional trenching did not reveal waste, so the sense
is that there is no longer a landfill at Site 1. We would like to send a letter to the Navy
requesting they do a little more work to determine whether a land fill is still present at Site 1.
The Navy began remediation on groundwater contamination.
Member Matarrese reminded staff that the original concern expressed was, not that there was a
landfill, but that it was uncharacterized and unknown. He wants to make sure all contaminated
materials are removed, and inert ones remain in place. Ms. Potter stated that we must go through
the CERCLA process, and that the time-critical removal was for the material down to two feet.
Member Matarrese asked how Site 1 could be closed if there is still objectionable material there.
Ms. Potter responded by stating that the work effort and investigation as part of IR Site 32 work
includes going further than two feet, and the moving of the materials allows the changing of the
boundaries of the IR sites and what they are studying. Member Matarrese would like a risk
assessment provided to the City with anticipated development in mind - to build a case for the
ultimate price tag for the property, i.e., if the property goes to auction, the contamination status
would affect the price.
There were two speakers on this item. James Leach, RAB member for 9 years, is there
voluntarily because they are experts and have done clean-up and provide oversight to a high
degree. George Humphreys, Co-Chair of the RAB, commented on Dr. Russell's evaluation of
the Site 1 issue.
Member Matarrese motioned to accept the report with future reports to include a risk
assessment of the significant issues being discussed from a technical standpoint. The
motion was seconded my Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes -
5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
Ms. Potter discussed two additional recommendations included in the staff report; first was the
request for authorization to request that the Navy further explore issue of whether there is still a
landfill, and second, that staff be given authorization to prepare and send a letter on the draft
final ROD. Since there is no opportunity to provide back to ARRA before it's sent, Member
Matarrese suggested it come back to the Board at a the second Council meeting in November
(November 18).
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the two additional recommendations, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions -
0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
- Highlights of September 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,4,"Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow night and the minutes from the
last meeting have been presented.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan asked if there was an update on the GSA property behind Foster Freeze. Ms.
Potter informed him that staff will get and update and provide it to the City Manager as an Off-
Agenda item.
Member Matarrese stated that the Board has received a stack of documents from SunCal, but has
not seen a document that fits the description of a Business Plan. He requested that staff ask
SunCal for a business plan. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, affirmed Member
Matarrese's request.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-03-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Absent:
Chair Beverly Johnson
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2010.
2-B. Approve a Third Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc., Increasing the Budget by $60,000 to Provide Ongoing Negotiation Support for
the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of February 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the February 4 RAB meeting, including a report
on remediation and field work: The Navy is continuing to dig up and remove radioactive
contaminated storm drain lines from Bldg. 5, there is active groundwater treatments at two sites
along the Oakland inner harbor, north of Pier 1; and a petroleum contaminated groundwater
treatment recovery operation near the Atlantic avenue entrance. There was discussion
regarding issues relative to the disturbance of nesting of migratory birds at the Bay Trail, and
that meetings with the Fish & Wildlife Service have been scheduled. There are expanded site
inspections along the south east portions of Alameda Point to Hangar Row, on the western side
of the lagoon. Lastly, there was discussion on RAB's purpose and processes governing the
RAB, and how well the RAB communicates to the general public about clean-up efforts. ARRA
will have a meeting on May 6 to promote and highlight clean-up work. Regulators from the
EPA, DTSC, and Water Board will attend. The meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010 at the
Mastick Senior Center. The RAB will hold their regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the Special
ARRA meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
04-06-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-03-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-03-03,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speakers
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese said that he and Chair Johnson attended the Association of Defense
Communities (ADC) conference in Feb in Albuquerque, NM. He stated that they participated in
various sessions and will prepare notes highlighting topics discussed in the sessions, including
base conversion stories and reuse of former military bases that were better, similar, or worse off
than Alameda Point. Regarding the base conversion and reuse, the spectrum ran from rural
conversion of an army weapons depot in Kansas, to a small village in Illinois. Member
Matarrese stated that there were a lot of contacts and exposure to all branches of service, their
experts and their experience, including the Director of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.
Ann Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director, expressed that she was pleased with the ARRA's
involvement in ADC and that she, along with executive staff, was invited to sit on the host
committee to plan the Annual ADC Conference taking place in San Francisco this year. The
anticipation is that there will be more than 1000 people in attendance. She stated that the ADC
accepted the ARRA's invitation to host an event at Alameda Point. She also said that the ADC
is interested in having the ARRA do a forum on the base and its history, including all the
different elements and components on remediation, phase-out issues, and that it would be a
good case study in terms of how they can learn some lessons.
Member Matarrese discussed two key items: 1) legislation on defense authorization bill, which
help communities grapple with the cost of closed bases, and 2) the new Undersecretary's
initiative to deal with green approaches, sustainability, and alternative energy sources.
Member Gilmore asked what the dates for the ADC Annual Conference were. Ms. Gallant
replied that it was early August, the 8th thru 11th. Member Tam reminded the Board of the
Charter provision to make a conscious effort to go dark in August.
Member Tam also asked if there was information on the status of conveyance of Treasure
Island. Jennifer Ott, Deputy Executive Director, spoke with the Project Manager of the Treasure
Island Development Authority (TIDA) and explained that TIDA was able to hammer out a very
brief term sheet, very similar to Alameda; and that now they are working on details. Nothing
official has been presented and no funds have exchanged hands. Because of the economy and
provisions of that agreement, additional density (more units) on Treasure Island will be worked
through with developer as well.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Member Matarrese.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-03-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-04-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday - April 5, 2006- 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 5, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-04-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A
Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the Approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The
motion was seconded by Chair Johnson and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A.
Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Steven Proud, project manager for Alameda Point, gave a brief update on Navy Negotiations,
focused on two fronts: submission of the conveyance proposal to the Navy; and the public planning
process. The conveyance proposal was submitted to the Navy in May and is under consideration by
the Navy right now. There have been meetings in support of that with some of the regulatory
agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and EPA. The next
meeting with the Navy to discuss the contents of the proposal is June 2, 2005. Mr. Proud reminded
the public and the Board that the next public workshop is on June 8th at the Mastick Senior Center,
starting at 6:30PM.
Chair Johnson thanked Mr. Proud and commented on all the positive feedback she's received from
the public regarding the workshops: that they appreciate all the hard work and effort and how
informative and helpful the presentations were.
Mr. Proud gave credit to Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, for coordinating the workshops, and
to Irma Frankel for coordinating the public outreach, and other staff members who have worked hard
to make sure the workshops are successful.
1
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,2,"Member deHaan asked when we're expecting the Navy to respond. Mr. Proud stated that we asked
for a response from the Navy by June 30th, which corresponds to the date in the conditional
acquisition agreement with Alameda Point Community Partners for there election to proceed.
3-B. Video presentation by the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York from the Alameda Naval Museum gave a brief (4 minutes) video presentation of the
Alameda naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York and Barbara Bach were two public speakers, both requesting a long term lease with
the right of renewal and the same terms for the ANAM.
Member deHaan thanked them for the effort they put in it and remarked that the video was
extremely informative. He commended them for the effort to get the shell improvements which were
over $700,000.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITMES
4-A. Report authorizing the Acting Executive Director to Execute a two year lease renewal (1-
year with 1-year owner option) with Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) for Building
77 at Alameda Point.
In response to Member deHaan's question regarding why the agreement is in front of the Board if
it's already been signed, Bill Norton explained that the agreement has not been signed by the
museum association, as they indicated they want at least a 5 year and probably a 20 year lease. So
they have not signed it. Mr. Norton further explained that the ANAM did have a 5 year lease.
However, there were performance criteria in the lease, but they did not have the ability to perform
over a 3 year period because they did not have time to actually occupy the structure until they got a
certificate of occupancy in March 2004, it's not reasonable to expect them evaluated on the
performance measure that they were required to. The original thought was to give them this prior
year plus 2 years upcoming, so that we could review the performance criteria during that period of
time. Mr. Norton advised, based upon some of the concerns that ANAM has, to modify the item to
authorize the Executive Director to enter into negotiations with ANAM for the lease, rather than
authorizing the existing lease agreement to be signed - enter into negotiations for a new lease.
There were several speakers, including the representative from Red Bridge Media, Ken Robles, who
is partnered with Veterans Administration Archival Department in Washington, D.C. in a historical
video project (video taping veterans) to keep the history alive.
Member Matarrese motioned for staff's recommendation to enter into negotiations for a
new lease with ANAM. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - O.
2
Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,3,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Oral report from APAC.
Chair Lee Perez was not present and the ARRA Secretary read written comments from Helen Sause
regarding her concerns on the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Chair Johnson advised that it was
unclear whether Ms. Sause's written note were drafted with Lee Perez as the APAC oral report, or if
she intended them to be just public comment.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese said he would have two RAB at the July 14th ARRA meeting.
6. ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body
has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker slip, Virginia Roberts, who supports Helen Sause's comments regarding
appointing a citizens committee to assist with the Alameda Point redevelopment.
Chair Johnson noted that public involvement is always encouraged and would like people to
continue to participate in the process.
7. COMMUNICAITONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
There was no additional communications from the Board.
8.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Chair Johnson advised that this item was a place holder in case it was needed, but that there was no
item to discuss.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 11:37 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Recommendation to Approve the Fourth Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
between the City of Alameda and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
Approval of the Consent Calendar item was passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;
Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
4.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-20.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-04-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 4, 2009.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the ARRA/HABOC of March 4, 2009.
2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Antiques by the Bay,
Building 13, at Alameda Point.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Antiques by the Bay,
Building 459, at Alameda Point.
2-E.
Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht
Company at Alameda Point.
2-F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Building
29, at Alameda Point.
2-G. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Hangar
22, at Alameda Point.
2-H. Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council, BSA Sea Scouts, Ancient
Mariner Regatta.
Staff requested to pull Items 2-E, 2-F, and 2-G. The balance of the consent calendar was
motioned for approval by Vice Chair deHaan, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by
the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. LRA Presentation of Treasure Island Redevelopment - Jack Sylvan, San Francisco
Mayor's office.
Jack Sylvan of the San Francisco Mayor's office gave a powerpoint presentation of the Treasure
Island redevelopment project. After the presentation, Boardmembers asked questions
regarding the Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA), its relationship with the Navy, and
if they were able to disclose their purchase price terms. Mr. Sylvan replied that he is not at",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-04-01,2,"liberty to discuss the term amount. The redevelopment challenges of the ARRA and TIDA are
very similar (transportation, density, etc.) noting that ARRA's Measure A and environmental
issues are a greater challenge.
3-B. Alameda Point Update.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview of
SunCal's work over the past 60 days, including its work toward the March 26 submittal of its
Ballot Initiative. SunCal requested a Tidelands Summary be prepared. The summary was
prepared by City Attorney's office and transmitted to City Clerk's office. Once the notice is
published, SunCal can begin its signature-gathering process to be completed by June 17. If the
required number of qualified signatures is received, the City Council will have to take action to
place the initiative on the ballot by Aug. 7. Pursuant to the ENA, SunCal has until April 30 to
elect whether they're going to formally move forward with the ballot process or submit an
application that is consistent with existing law. A second milestone to be completed by April 30
is the required deposit to begin CEQA work. Staff anticipates coming back to the ARRA in May
with an award of contract for an EIR consultant. SunCal will also provide a presentation and
summary of the components of their initiative which will include a specific plan, community plan,
a Development Agreement, and various other amendments to the zoning ordinance and city's
general plan.
Member Matarrese requested that the timeline of the process be posted on the Alameda Point
website.
One speaker, Ashley Jones, directed a question to Mayor Johnson regarding her ability to be
impartial regarding the Measure A issue as it pertains to the redevelopment at Alameda Point.
Mayor Johnson replied that the speaker time is for the public to comment on the item and not for
discussion.
Janet Davis expressed concern about the contamination and the safeguards in place before
development begins. David Brandt explained to Ms. Davis that the agencies that are overseeing
the clean up are the EPA and the DTSC. Boardmembers also recommended Ms. Davis attend
the RAB meetings for more information on the environmental issues of Alameda Point.
Helen Sause spoke in support of the SunCal initiative and encouraged Alameda citizens to read
the information and understand it before making a decision.
3-C. Alameda Point Environmental Issues Update: Radiological Substance at West Shore
of Seaplane Lagoon and Block of Oversize Debris at North Shore of Seaplane
Lagoon.
This update is being provided to notify the ARRA board of several recent discoveries made by
the Navy in conjunction with a couple clean-up projects in the vicinity of the Seaplane Lagoon.
The Navy is currently working on amending a current clean-up contract to deal with radioactive
material, and also further investigating the block of concrete. Staff recommends that the ARRA
send a letter to the Navy with specific requests to resolve these issues including: requesting that
the Navy, as part of the analysis that they do on the radioactive material, that they rule out any
possibility that radioactive material could have come from anything other than the outfall that is
in the vicinity which carried a lot of waste from several buildings that dealt with radium paint -
and if they can't rule out that as the only possible source for that material - that they conduct a
base-wide radiological survey; the second request: that the Navy characterize the cement block
and inform of their decision on how to dispose of the concrete debris.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-04-01,3,"Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-12-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA Board provided instruction to the Real Property Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:50
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itura Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 2, 2009",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-12-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:03 p.m. with Vice Chair deHaan presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
Absent:
Chair Beverly Johnson (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 2010.
2-B. Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 001 Amending the Order of Business of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting.
2-C. Approve a Fourth Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.,
Increasing the Budget by $25,000 for Providing Negotiation Support for the
Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Member Tam asked to pull Item 2-C, and moved to approve the balance of the Consent
Calendar. Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by following voice vote
- Ayes: 4.
Member Tam requested more clarification on the amount of the EPS contract amendment and
asked if SunCal was consulted on the overage, to which the Deputy City Manager,
Development Services, responded in the affirmative, explaining that the Negotiating Cost
Ledger has been made available to SunCal, and all invoices are included in the ledger.
Member Tam asked what the ENA obligations are if the budget or scope is exceeded for
consultant contracts. The Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded that
contracts are separate from the SunCal Cost Recovery account, and the amount of the EPS
contract has not exceeded any Cost Recovery provisions under the ENA.
Member Tam asked what the total budget was for EPS under the Cost Recovery Account, to
which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded that the total budget for the
quarter was approximately $372,000 for all consultants. Based on this clarification, Member
Tam stated she will abstain from this item.
Member Gilmore asked if there are sufficient funds in the Cost Recovery account to cover the
overage of the EPS contract amendment, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development
Services, responded in the affirmative.
Member Gilmore asked if there is a mechanism in place if charges are disputed, to which the
Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded in the affirmative.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,2,"Member Matarrese moved for approval of Item 2-C. Vice Chair deHaan seconded the
motion, which carried by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1
(Tam)
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Adopt a Resolution Supporting the United States Navy's Transfer of 549 Acres of the
Former Naval Air Station in the City of Alameda to the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs for the Development of an Out-Patient Clinic and Columbarium.
The Deputy City Manager, Development Services clarified that the staff report combines an
information piece which addresses the VA-NAVY deal, and requires no action; and a
'recommendation' portion to adopt a resolution in support of property transfer to the VA.
The Deputy City Manager, Development Services summarized the background of the proposed
VA project and property transfer.
Member Tam inquired if it was necessary that the resolution exclude the 9.7 acres of the Least
Tern colony, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services explained that the 9.7
acres is included, along with the buffer zone surrounding the Wildlife Refuge, which is more
than half of the 549 acres.
The Deputy City Manager, Development Services introduced Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset
Manager from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Mr. Jaynes gave a brief presentation of the
status and projected timeline of the VA project.
Speakers: Proponents: Mark Chandler, Commissioner of the Alameda County Veterans Affairs
Commission; Alex McElree, Operation Dignity; Aidan Barry.
Opponents: Gary Bard; Leora Feeney, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge (FAWR)
Committee; Ron Barklow; Cindy Margulis; Michael Lynes, Golden Gate Audubon; Jean
Sweeney; Jon Spangler; Jim Sweeney; Adam Gillitt; William Smith, Sierra Club; Joyce Larrick,
FAWR; Nancy Hird
Chair Johnson inquired if there is a specific location identified in the resolution for the VA
project, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in the negative,
further explaining that the 549 acres are part of a formal request that includes the specific
property.
Vice Chair deHaan clarified that there was discussion by the Board that the old Phase 3, the
area near the USS Hornet, is a feasible location for the VA project, but there are still options to
be pursued.
Member Tam inquired whether this Fed to Fed transfer from the Navy to the VA is going to
happen irrespective of whether or not the Board endorse it or oppose it, to which the Deputy
City Manager, Development Services responded that there is a process that has to be followed
in order for the Fed-to-Fed transfer to occur, which includes NEPA and a Section 7
Consultation. At this time, there are no guarantees that the process will be completed, but the
assumption is that once the process is complete, the transfer will occur.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,3,"Member Tam brought attention to the alternative resolution from the Golden Gate Audubon
Society which includes recognition that there should be protection for the Least Terns, based on
a biological opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife.
Member Gilmore inquired why the VA was requesting 549 acres when they only require
approximately 100 acres for their project, to which Mr. Jaynes replied that the Navy stated the
transfer would be the 549 acres or nothing. Mr. Jaynes further explained that it is not part of the
VA's mission to manage that portion of property, so the VA is planning to have a separate
agreement with the USF&W to oversee the remaining 449 acres, just as the Navy has the same
agreement with them right now; the funding will come from the VA instead of the Navy.
Member Matarrese inquired if the property was transferred to the ARRA, could the ARRA then
dispose of it to the VA, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in
the affirmative. Mr. Jaynes expressed that there may be stumbling blocks without proceeding
with the BRAC process.
Member Matarrese inquired whether the city will be able to participate in the VA project process,
to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in the affirmative.
Member Gilmore requested more details from the VA regarding what their plans are with USFW,
and the proposed annual budget, so that it does not become an afterthought.
Member Tam suggested adding the language from the Golden Gate Audubon Society regarding
the protection of the Least Tern colony to the ARRA Resolution.
Vice Chair deHaan moved for approval of Item 3-A, with a revision to the Resolution
adding ""Whereas, the City of Alameda will continue to prioritize the protection and
conservation of the California Least Tern in its planning documents and decisions"".
Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote: 5
Ayes.
3-B. Presentation: Alameda Point - 'Going Forward'.
The Interim City Manager announced that Item 3-C will be combined with 3-B into a single
presentation. The presentation focused on a planning and assessment model for a going-
forward approach for the development of Alameda Point. The Interim City Manager
emphasized that this model is not a development plan, not a land use plan, or anything that
requires actual legislative decision, it is a recommendation and topic for discussion. The
presentation included seven key components of this approach: lessons learned, new structure,
strategic alliances, development delivery systems, asset management police application,
financial resources, and implementation schedule.
Vice Chair deHaan inquired who will comprise the team for this model approach, to which the
Interim City Manager responded that familiar staff members, including the Deputy City Manager,
Development Services; the Planning Services Manager, Public Works Director; and various
consultants, will comprise the team.
Speakers: Adam Gillitt, Tony Daysog, Jean Sweeney, Jon Spangler, Alex McElree, Richard
Bangert, Nancy Hird, Doug Biggs, Gretchen Lipow.
Vice Chair deHaan remarked that the timeline for this plan is very aggressive, and suggested
compressing the timeline. The Interim City Manager clarified that the ambitious timeline doesn't",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,4,"mean the base is going to be completed in 15 months, rather, the 15 months timeline is for
planning an assessment. The Board will have an opportunity to augment the timeline in more
detail after subsequent discussions and at subsequent meetings.
Member Matarrese stated that on strategic alliances, the regulators should be recognized, the
EPA & DTSC for clean-up, and USF&W for the environmental. Regarding policy questions,
Member Matarrese also expects certain questions to resurface, i.e., finances and how tax
increment might be used, where the shortfalls are, how they will be backfilled, and where there
are opportunities for early transfer for land that has already been cleaned up. Member
Matarrese also suggested looking at the potential for having a citywide Project Labor Agreement
(PLA) . There also needs to be discussion about jobs-housing balance, to give an opportunity
for public to weigh in on it. Member Matarrese remarked on the notion of using ""other peoples
money"", i.e., funds from the Federal Government and MTC, as these funds could add up.
Member Gilmore echoed Member Matarrese's comments and requested to see a primer of what
the lease environment looks like in the Bay Area, regarding the asset management application.
If the ARRA is renegotiating leases, it would be good to know realistically what the competition
is, in order to have a more realistic expectation in terms of putting in more capital into a building
or not.
In terms of leasing strategy, Member Tam inquired whether or not there is opportunity to adjust
the restriction in the LIFOC which says the Navy can give minimal notice to terminate a tenant,
recommending that it is something that should be pursued.
There was discussion about the amount of documents that have been produced and compiled
through the years, and where they are made available to the public on the City and Alameda
Point websites. The Interim City Manager stated that staff is working on implementing a new
Alameda Point website which will focus strictly on Alameda Point and the development project
going forward.
3-C. Presentation: Citywide Asset Management Strategy - Alameda Point Application.
(This item was combined with 3-B)
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative
- Highlights of August 5 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese stated that there were a number of interesting documents that were
presented at the August RAB meeting, including a report on IR Site 35, which is action sites that
are in the very center of the property being transferred to the ARRA; a presentation on
groundwater remediation at OU-2A, which discussed clean up; and communications from the
RAB to the Navy. Member Matarrese remarked that the most interesting handout was an
abstract done in concert with the Navy, EPA, Shaw Group (the contractor) and federal money
from a SERDP grant through the University of Florida, Gainesville. The abstract depicts the
results of a method of clean up of TCE (trichloroethene), Plume 4-1. Member Matarrese stated
that this should be of interest to Alameda because it is being published in a scientific journal, it
brings focus on what is going on at Alameda Point, and creates notoriety on methods that could
be used at other bases. Handouts were provided to the Clerk for copies to be made and
distributed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,5,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Report from the Executive Director recommending the Approval of Alameda Power &
Telecom Sublease at Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Tony Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of the Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development concept (PDC) - A
Planning Feasibility Study for the Redevelopment and Reuse of the Former Alameda Naval Air
Station.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the revised PDC and discussed what the major
revisions were, including: alternative plans approaches, various constraints affecting the layout and
design, and a clarification in the executive summary that the PDC is a feasibility study, and not the
final ""plan"".
The revised PDC also included expanded discussion regarding Measure A issues, and a good
foundation for a solid transportation strategy. Mr. Thomas further summarized the revisions, stating
that the phasing program is conceptual and there was text added to include information on civic
community type facilities, churches and plazas, etc. emphasizing that the general plan calls for these
kinds of uses. There were a number of revisions to the Next Steps chapter, primarily the
environmental review and entitlement process for the first phase should our master developer choose
to proceed.
Chair Johnson called up the several speakers who discussed the following topics:
- concern about the insufficiency of neighborhood centers
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,2,"- a representative from AAPS requested a reuse study be included in the PDC for the historic
buildings
- a representative from the APC expressed their interest in continuing to be involved in the
development plan process
-
a representative from Operation Dignity expressed concerns about the Board accepting the
PDC in draft form
- representatives from HOMES and the Sierra Club expressed their appreciation and support
with the progress of the PDC compared to other developments.
Member Matarrese thanked the staff for providing the input and revisions. He agreed with the
speaker who mentioned that the Board should not approve a draft document; and rather, approve a
final document. He would like to see more information on a green standards plan and a plan for
sustainable communities and expressed concern about the word ""feasibility study"", afraid it might be
dismissed because it does not ""comply"" with the PDC. He further stated that the PDC document is
still conceptual. Members Gilmore and Daysog agreed with Member Matarrese's statements.
Member Daysog would like to see more information on the fiscal implications of the PDC, especially
on Phase II and Phase III.
Member deHaan reminded folks that there was a community reuse plan prior to this PDC, which
included the development of commercial and industrial spaces to maximize transportation.
Member Matarrese motioned for Council to direct staff to simulate the comments that were made
and produce a final document for approval. He requested the document be in red-line/strikeout
format so that revisions are clearly seen in the document.
City Manager, Debra Kurita, recommended that the draft revisions be text-only to save cost. It was
agreed by all Boardmembers to just bring back the document at the regular ARRA Board meeting in
November; there was no need to make a motion for this action.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, clarified some points to the Board. He stated that the
PDC is a component of the conditional acquisition agreement (CAA) that we have with APCP. Other
components include getting a conveyance agreement structure set forward with the Navy and then the
completion of the preliminary development concept. Based on the timing with regards to meeting
with the Navy, Mr. Proud recommended the revised document be brought back at the December
meeting, instead of November. All Boardmembers accepted this recommendation.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report, as Member Matarrese stated the meeting was the following day.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith spoke about various topics.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,3,"Alex McElree, Executive Director of Operation Diginity, requested the ARRA Board encourage the
City Council to fulfill the promise they made to Operation Dignity and to the homeless through the
homeless conveyance of the McCain/Feinstein Act and build the 39-Units (homes).
6.
COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:11 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only.
There were no speaker slips.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Acting Executive Director, Bill Norton, gave a brief overview about the work session on the
ARRA Budget and introduced Development Services Director, Leslie Little, who introduced
staff : Nanette Banks, Jennifer Ott, and Stephen Proud.
Leslie Little gave a powerpoint presentation on the Budget Planning for Alameda Point. The
presentation focused on transition planning and preparation for the development of Alameda
Point. The information presented expresses the existing conditions in the current ARRA
budget and also the implications of some of the decisions that have been made during current
negotiations. Ms. Little discussed two options to consider: 1) how to transition in the event
that the developer (APCP) elects to proceed with the development of Alameda Point and, 2)
how to transition if APCP chooses NOT to proceed.
Ms. Little discussed the first scenarios (APCP proceeding), including the Alameda Point
Bond, and that the activities that are currently being paid from it would transfer as direct cost
to the developer; approximately 18 months. Other responsibilities would also shift to the
developer, leasing and property maintenance activities, other financials responsibilities like
project related tax increments, and current debt obligation.
The second option was discussed (APCP electing not to proceed). Ms Little noted that this
issue is a ""structural deficiency"" in the ARRA Budget. She stated that there are expenditures
that are greater than the revenues at this point. She explained that if the developer doesn't
elect to proceed, the key issues moving forward are: the Alameda Point Bond will be
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,2,"exhausted some time around Sept and October; there are a number of deferred costs, or
capital costs, that are expected would be part of the developer's pro forma; and the debt
payments that began to come due in 2006. Also included in the presentation was the current
ARRA staff load on the existing ARRA budget.
Ms. Little continued to discuss some challenges to the ARRA budget. She explained that by
2006 and 7 we will have spent down our fund balance and, by 2008, we won't have enough
to balance our budget. She discussed how a large part of the ARRA budget is contributed to
municipal services -- about 1/2 of what we take in annually, $10M in revenue. She stated that
the presentation is intended to start the conversation about the need to either increase
general fund revenue opportunities to tackle some of the costs, or decrease the general fund
expenditures out at Alameda Point because we don't have the resources to continue to
support them.
Ms. Little discussed the current pro forma and its assumptions regarding new public
revenues, primarily in property tax pass thru, the sales taxes, property transfer taxes, etc.
with the sale of the homes (new development) = revenues coming into the general fund.
She concluded the presentation, summarizing that staff is preparing for APCP to move
forward in the next two months and that we will need to transition quickly negotiate a
disposition and development agreement at 18 months and move into an implementation
mode; subsequently, if APCP does not move forward, there are implications regarding
dealing with long term costs over time. Ms. Little mentioned a subsequent ""phase 2"" ARRA
Budget workshop.
Councilmember de Haan expressed concern with the Navy's inability to fulfill the
commitment to the 18 mos. transition period. Stephen Proud addressed his concern by
explaining that we are trying to expedite the time line as much as possible, to the extent that
the Navy would be able to make the property available to us sooner. He discussed various
issues on the timeline that we (ARRA) have to accomplish, specifically the environmental
review process.
Boardmembers and staff discussed general leasing issues/opportunities at Alameda Point,
with Chair Johnson mentioning activities to attract film productions.
Member Matarrese expressed concern about the ""structural problem"" of the ARRA Budget,
stating that perhaps we' ve set the system up for failure - and that we may be providing
services that we simply cannot afford given our leasing capability. Leslie Little addressed
his concern by explaining that once there is a DDA, the actual costs that are being born by
the budget now, would have to be reduced significantly, specifically the municipal services.
Member Gilmore asked about insurance expenses. Leslie Little explained that the tenants
themselves carry liability insurance as part of their lease requirement.
Member Daysog initiated discussion about the proposed mitigation where the general fund
reduces dependency on the ARRA and absorbs 1.8million dollars in expenses. The
municipal services funding resources was discussed.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,3,"Member Gilmore summarized the challenges of reducing the amount of expenditures in the
ARRA budget, by allowing the general fund to absorb those expenditures. Bill Norton
replied that staff provided the ARRA Board with this detail to see the impact of the changes
on the general fund.
3-B.
Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Direct P.M. Realty, Acting as
Property Manager, to Enter Into a Contract with Courtney Giampolini to Waterproof
City Hall West (Building One) in an Amount not to Exceed $966,650
Nanette Banks provided photos of the extensive water damage in various locations of
Building 1(City Hall West). Building 1, like other buildings at Alameda Point, have
problems that require a lot of work, specifically asbestos remediation, lead paint and
waterproofing, roof and other capital upgrades. Ms. Banks introduced Rick Jones,
construction manager from PM Realty Group.
After Mr. Jones explained the problems with the buildings, he and Chair Johnson had
conversation about the contractor bidding process and if this process was approved by the
ARRA. Ms. Banks explained that in an exhibit to the property management agreement with
PM Realty, PM Realty is allowed to use their own process for selecting contractors for us.
Member deHaan, as well as the other boardmembers, expressed concern about the almost
$1M.cost for the building repair. Member Gilmore questioned the long-term ""guarantees"" to
this costly solution. She wanted reassurance that the same problems don't resurface in a
year, after spending $1M. Mr. Jones explained that there is a 10 yr warranty, which is pretty
standard in the industry.
Staff and boardmembers discussed other options for housing City Staff. Bill Norton
explained that there is no other space available for city staff to move into. There was also
further discussion about window replacements. Mr. Jones stated that 40 windows would be
replaced, and the other 200 are aluminum.
Member Daysog stated that the ARRA is in a fiscal crises and as such non-life threatening
projects, like waterproofing, I believe need to be delayed especially if the professional
opinion is that delay doesn't result in significant cost increases to the project.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Daysog but stated that (Building 1) is a workplace for
our workers and we can't have our city employees working in those conditions. She also
requested a briefing for discussion of the ARRA board the bidding process and requirements.
The Board approved the staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-1
(Daysog); Abstentions-0
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,4,"4. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\April 19.Special ARRA minutes.doc
4",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-06-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 6, 2007-6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
2151 Ferry Point, Alameda, CA
Negotiating parties:
City of Alameda and Alameda Naval Air Museum
Under negotiation:
Lease price and terms
ARRA received an oral briefing from its Real Property Negotiator, no action was taken.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal Companies
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding the status of
negotiations with SunCal, and provided negotiating direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 6, 2007",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-06-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The meeting convened at 9:34 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 7, 2007.
2-B. Approve Two-Year Sublease for Architectural Glass & Aluminum at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Proposed Sale and Disposition of Surplus Property at Alameda Point, Itemized
as Five Rapid Electric Rectifiers, One Industrial Oven, Two Abrasive Blasters, and One
Abar Ipson IVD Machine, for a Total Amount of $84,000 in Revenue to the ARRA.
2-D. Approval to Provide Building 24 for No Cost for Alameda Boys & Girls Club Fundraiser.
Member deHaan pulled Item 2-D. Approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar was
motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the
following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions. Member Gilmore abstained from Item
2-A (Aug. 7 Minutes), as she was absent from that meeting.
Member deHaan asked why Item 2-D was brought before the ARRA on short notice. Debbie
Potter, Base Reuse & Community Development Manager, explained that the ARRA Board meets
once a month, and often times requests come through, particularly from non-profits or small
businesses that might not be familiar with the steps and processes necessary to approve their
requests. Their lack of familiarity that any requests would have to come to the board is the
reason for the short notice, and as soon as the request was received, it was placed on the agenda.
Ms. Potter further explained that it is not unusual to take and approve requests for fee-waivers
from non-profits; but in the past, this was done administratively, and just more recently, the
policy was to bring these requests to the ARRA.
Member deHaan motioned to approve Item 2-D, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by
the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Master Project Schedule Prepared by SCC
Alameda Point LLC",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,2,"Debbie Potter summarized the Alameda Point project to date and introduced Pat Keliher,
SunCal's Project Manager, to present the Master Project Schedule. The ENA calls for the master
plan to be prepared initially, and updated on a quarterly basis and presented to the ARRA. The
first update of the Master Schedule will be presented in the Dec. - Jan. timeframe.
Pat Keliher walked through highlights of the Project Master Schedule and explained that the
schedule was put together in a logical manner, first with the public planning process, which
clearly is important to set the stage for a final development plan. The first community meeting
will be scheduled very soon, and consist of land, site, design constraints and charettes. The
second stage of public process includes returning back to the public to present a development
concept. Mr. Keliher emphasized how critical it is to remain consistent and continue the public
process throughout the project timeline. Next critical item on the schedule is the traffic, location,
and infrastructure impacts of the VA issue and scope of their project. Mr. Keliher stated that
SunCal began early on working together with the VA.
The next key phase is the Planning and Entitlement phase where the development concept,
public amenities, adaptive reuse, and historic district issues are refined. Mr. Keliher explained
that SunCal has met with members of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS),
and with Chris Buckley and Richard Rutter, to evaluate buildings and uses in the historic district.
SunCal's next key item on the schedule is the submittal of the Entitlement Application in March
2008. Mr. Keliher did not go into detail with the balance of schedule which includes the DA,
DDA, CAA, Business Plan, MOA, Tidelands Trust Agreement, etc. He further explained that the
NEPA & CEQA processes can't start until project description is in place. He expressed how
critical the next three to six months are and that SunCal is committed to meeting the milestones.
Member Matarrese focused on the zoning issue and asked when Zoning will be adopted. He
requested that the Zoning is put under the control of the City and is locked so that the City
protects itself. Debbie Potter explained that the city anticipates the entitlement package
(Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment,
Zoning amendment, and Master Plan) will all come together as one package, and, pursuant to the
ENA allows this in July 2009. One of the mandatory milestones is the submittal of an initial
entitlement package by May 2008, which will trigger the CEQA process. David Brandt, Deputy
Executive Director, explained that the milestone is not an actual exchange, just a framework
agreement of how we'll proceed. Chair Johnson requested it is made clear that the milestone is a
framework. Mr. Brandt further explained that once the CEQA process is complete, the City
Council can then adopt Zoning, but legally it cannot be done without an environmental review
process. Member Matarrese expressed concern about zoning changes and that any changes have
to go thru the City so that it is not left open if the Navy decides to change the rules. Debbie
Potter explained that the intent is to execute all required documents simultaneously such that we
protect our existing position as our role as the trustee. Ms. Potter assured that she will discuss
with the Planning dept. about whether or not the existing EIR done for the General Plan
Amendment is sufficient, or whether we will have to undertake additional environmental review.
An update on this issue will be reported at the Oct. ARRA meeting.
Member deHaan asked if the Navy will be able to meet the timeline, and if not, what the
consequences are. David Brandt stated that we cannot guarantee that the Navy will perform and
we cannot control third party delay. Debbie Potter stated that we should be hearing from the
Navy about the schedule in the next day or so.
Member Gilmore commented that our sense of urgency does not match the Navy's and that they
need to come to the realization that time is money for everyone involved. The costs of",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,3,"construction, infrastructure, etc. makes the project difficult, and the factors that affect our
developer, and would affect any developer, affects the Navy as well.
Pat Keliher stated that SunCal has a tactical strategy to deal with the Navy - that they have a
streamlined process of sharing technical studies and other documents that underpin the CEQA &
NEPA processes; but that there are still a lot of unknowns, including whether there will be
funding for clean-up. Chair Johnson compared the Oaknoll site to Alameda, that Oaknoll was a
clean site without Tidelands Trust issues. Mr. Keliher reiterated SunCal's commitment to the
challenging, but necessary task, stating that SunCal would work with the City of Alameda, their
consultants and lobbyists, to deal with the changing climate ahead that may affect things moving
forward.
The Board thanked Mr. Keliher and SunCal for presenting the Master Project Schedule and
expressed it was a job well done.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-05-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Vice Chair deHaan presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
Absent:
Chair Beverly Johnson (arrived at 8:40 p.m.)
2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
2-A. Alameda Point Environmental Update - Presentation by the Navy and Regulatory
Agencies.
Vice Chair deHaan introduced Jennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager, to open the presentation. Ms.
Ott gave an overview on what will be presented: a summary of the environmental program, the
accomplishments that have been made to date, funds that have been expended by the Navy to
date, as well as some of the economic development impacts of the process. The presenters
were Derek Robinson of the Navy, Anna-Marie Cook of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and Dot Lofstrom of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
After the presentation, the Board discussed key issues with the presenters.
Vice Chair deHaan commented on the long process and gave a brief background on the
remediation efforts. He thanked the community and past chairs for their continued support.
Member Tam expressed her appreciation for the update and the amount of work & effort that
goes into the clean up. She asked how the funds are controlled and administered, who they
flow through given the various jurisdictions involved (i.e., is the funding centralized through the
BRAC and then through the other agencies) and how they are allocated through congressional
authorizations.
Derek Robinson explained that he will get clarification on the funding process and will report the
information back to Member Tam. He also clarified that the Navy's focus is not on recouping
the funds spent in the clean-up. Vice Chair deHaan discussed the change of philosophy
regarding the remediation of Alameda Point. He clarified that the clean-up was under the
complete control of the Navy, and that in 2000, the Navy allowed the developer to consider
privatized clean-up, and then it went back under the control of the Navy.
Member Matarrese asked for more clarification about the process after a parcel is determined to
be cleaned to the level at which it was assigned - how notification, information and
documentation is given to the next successor agency in order for them to continue the work. Dot
Lofstrom explained that there is an official administrative record that the Navy maintains and
information & documentation will always be in the Information Repository. In addition, there is
an informal repository that DTSC is maintaining through their Envirostore Database. There is a
Agenda Item #2-A
CC/ARRA/CIC
06-01-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-05-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-05-06,2,"certification process after a parcel has been cleaned. Ann Marie Cook of EPA further explained
this process: Once a site has reached a point where it is considered meeting the goals set for it
to be cleaned, the Navy prepares a ""Remedial Action Completion Report' and the EPA, because
it is a Superfund site, is required to make the determination that all clean-up action necessary
has been completed. The Navy then drafts a Finding of Suitability report to transfer that
property.
Member Gilmore asked for the status of the transfer process of cleaned VA lands and whether
or not the Navy and the VA have reached a basic deal. Jennifer Ott explained that the transfer
is moving forward, but awaiting approval from the administration to move forward. She stated
that at this time, there are no details of a basic deal, but she will keep the Board updated on any
further developments.
Vice Chair deHaan asked about the status of remediation of the Seaplane Lagoon. Mr.
Robinson stated that they are currently in Stage 1, which includes removing large debris piles
on the north side, and that Stage 2 will include remediating soils from the outlet of the storm
drain systems. Construction activities will start in Sep./Oct. 2010. Vice Chair deHaan also
asked about Site 2 wetlands. He was concerned that the estimated cost of clean-up for Site 2
was approximately $100 million. Mr. Robinson stated that number seems high, and is more
likely $20 million - but will get the correct information to report back to the Board.
There were three speakers: Jim Sweeney discussed the potential adaptive reuse of Building 5.
According to Ann Marie Cook, Building 5 is one million square feet, is 65 feet tall, and qualifies
as a historical building. She managed to secure funding from an EPA pilot program and they
are looking at costs associated with reusing portions of the building and demolishing other
portions. She will be able to provide an update in three months, with a final report in about
seven months.
Irene Dieter, speaking on behalf of community, expressed her concern about lack of information
and public relations to the community about all the remediation efforts and other activities
regarding Alameda Point. Ms. Ott reiterated that there are monthly RAB and ARRA meetings,
as well as notices on the City and Alameda Point websites.
The third speaker, Maria Hargrove, expressed concern about traffic and congestion in and out
of Alameda Point. Chair Johnson informed Ms. Hargrove that the Planning Board meeting on
Monday, May 10, will discuss traffic issues and present a plan.
Chair Johnson thanked all the presenters for coming together to coordinate this Special
Meeting, and for the important information they provided in their presentation. She reiterated to
the public how important the information provided by these agencies is in helping the community
understand all the activity and efforts in cleaning up Alameda Point.
3.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Jana Glidden
Trma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-05-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-B
Thursday, January 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 8:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
There were no speaker slips.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3-A. Amending Resolution No. 010 establishing rules and procedures for Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority meetings by amending the starting time of regular meetings from 5:30 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m. (requested by Boardmember Matarrese)
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
Member Matarrese noted that this item is approved with the intent to increase public participation.
4.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
4-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel,
ARRA Secretary
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\1-20-05 Special.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-20.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Member Daysog presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 19, 2005
2-B. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to direct PM Realty Group, acting as
Property Manager, to enter into a contract with Manson Construction Company to dredge
The Alameda Point channel in an amount not to exceed $575,000.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
Presentation
3-A Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager gave a brief update on the AP conveyance
activities. There is a meeting scheduled with the Navy on September 29th to discuss, and come
to a resolution, on the ""divide' in the analysis of the value of the property. The outcome of that
meeting will be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting on October 5th Mr. Proud
introduced Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, to give an update on the Preliminary
Development Concept (PDC).
Mr. Thomas discussed staff's review of comments received from the public and from the ARRA
Board (of the July 14th meeting) and efforts to use this information to make revisions to the PDC.
The revisions include addressing and clarifying a number of issues, such as its role, its purpose,
and the Next Steps to clarify Historic Preservation issues. The document will also be revised to
include an additional appendix in response to some of the requests for more financial information
- the financial trade offs that are embedded within the PDC. The plan is to present the revised
draft PDC to the ARRA Board and the public at the October 5th ARRA Board meeting.
Revisions to the document will be in a red-lined, strikeout version so the public can very clearly
see where changes were made.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,2,"Mr. Thomas announced that we received a $250,000 grant Metropolitan Transportation
Commission Grant, a land planning grant to help with next phases of the planning for Alameda
Point, particularly around the transit center. There is also progress toward a memorandum of
agreement with BART on a $485,000. grant, a federal earmark that was received over a year ago
We have been meeting with representatives from the Navy and the Local Historic Preservation
Community to continue the discussion on the Historic Preservation issues that were generated by
the PDC, and that is in the context of the Section 106 consultation which is really a Navy lead
effort. A briefing to discuss the PDC and the 106 consultation process with the Historical
Advisory Board on Alameda Point is planned for October 6th. City Staff has also been invited
to
attend a League of Women's Voters workshop on September 29th and November 15th
Member Daysog called 2 speakers, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, and Neil Garcia
Sinclair of Cybertran who gave a quick update on the Cybertran/University of California/BART
coalition and the proposal of establishing a research center in transportation energy at Alameda
Point.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese was unable to attend last week's RAB meeting, so there is no report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker slip, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the VA,
development at Alameda Point; and various unrelated topics as well.
7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Daysog welcomed the new City Manager, Debra Kurita, who is also the Executive
Director of the ARRA, to her first ARRA meeting.
8. ADJOURMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, July 14, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:25 p.m. with Member Gilmore presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
After the Pledge of Allegiance Member Matarrese motioned to move the Closed Session (Item
3-A) to the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by
the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
None.
3.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
3-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
This item was moved to the end of the agenda.
4. PROCLAMATION
4-A. Proclamation to members of the APAC for their dedication and unwavering commitment
to the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore addressed the audience and APAC members. She spoke about how APAC has
helped the community understand the challenges and issues regarding Alameda Point. Member
Gilmore then read the proclamation and handed one out to each of the APAC members.
APAC Chair Lee Perez thanked the ARRA Board for the opportunity to serve over the last
several years - he spoke about how pleased they (the APAC) were with the response to the
Reuse Plan & the participation from the community. He also mentioned that it's been a long
haul over the last 12 years since they first started and they were pleased with the outcome so far.
Member deHaan, expressed his gratitude for the leadership and dedication that Chair Perez and
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,2,"all the other members of APAC contributed toward the planning efforts of Alameda Point.
Members Daysog, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson (who just arrived at this point) also expressed
their gratitude.
5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of March 2, 2005.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 6, 2005.
5-C. Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources extending the term for 90-
days and adding $54,000 to the budget for environmental consulting services.
5-D. Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
5-E. Recommendation to amend the approved FY 2005-2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000
for repairs to the Al Dewitt O'Club.
Member Gilmore motioned to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
6.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6-A. Presentation of the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point
establishing land use goals, transportation strategy and historic preservation strategy.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, discussed the updates on the Conveyance
process with the Navy and the status of the budget. The key topic discussed was the progress
with planning efforts regarding the PDC and introduced the document to the Board for their
review.
Mr. Proud advised that there are continuing discussions with the Navy on disposal strategies and
constraints with the property; and that we're moving forward with the Navy regarding a conveyance
agreement. He discussed the community meetings and the success in each of the workshops to
tackle specific topics that helped produce this draft document (the PDC). He further discussed
issues at Alameda Point (AP) about Navy conveyance and the land planning process.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, focused on the Community Reuse Plan and the draft
PDC. He discussed what the community's expectations for the development of AP and what the
real priorities are. He advised that the PDC was an integration of ""new"" with the ""old""
(Community Reuse Plan). Mr. Thomas explained the several Appendices of the PDC, which
included the Transportation Strategy, specifically the Broadway/Jackson feasibility study; and
the Historic Preservation element.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,3,"Regarding the Historic Preservation, Mr. Thomas discussed that there was a lot of community
involvement with questions regarding which buildings and homes to keep and which to get rid
of. The residential portion of the plan included 3000 new units: homes for sale and rentals.
There were several speakers who discussed various topics related to the PDC, including:
- Conversion of the naval base - Measure A
- Adequate school facilities at AP.
- Transportation planning
- Solar energy equipment
- Keeping the BOQ building for Veterans or Senior Housing
- Historic District Preservation
- Housing for all income levels
7.
ORAL REPORT
7-A. Oral report from APAC.
No oral report.
7-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese discussed topics from the last RAB meeting, including clean-up
methods, and how petroleum is being extracted. He also gave an update on the BCT activities
and the schedule for the site management program, which lists all the clean-up activities.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speaker slips.
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None
10. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:21 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-06-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 3, 2009- 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator and provided direction on
negotiations.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 3, 2009",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-06-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-08-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- August 2, 2006-5:46 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of Case:
Kienowski Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
ARRA gave direction to legal counsel to support the Chapter 11 Plan.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Staff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. ARRA provided instructions. No
action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Since Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 2, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-08-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. October 4, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:05 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 2006.
Approval of 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.
Member deHaan had questions about two of the subleases due to their duration and requested
information about the specific tenants, as well as an overview of current leasing prospects.
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration of DSD, explained that TransFreight Express wants
to relocate their corporate headquarters and distribution center at Alameda Point. The other lease
is to Makani for Building 19 to be used as R&D and office space. It is an alternative energy
(wind-based) company that may also be interested in using the runways for experiments. Leslie
Little, Development Services Manager, indicated that there continues to be ongoing interest in
the buildings at Alameda Point, but pointed out the obviously expensive building improvements
necessary to make them usable, which tends to limit some potential businesses.
Approval of 2-B was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
2-C. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to Execute a contact agreement with
WRT/Solomon E.T.C. in the amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area planning activities
for Alameda Point.
Member deHaan inquired about the source of the $250,000 and whether we are in a position
today to approve the contract, given the master developer situation. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse
and Community Development Manager, explained that this is pursuant to a $250,000 grant
received from MTC - with City contribution of $3,000 - for the purpose of more detailed
planning of the transit node. To not go forward at this time means losing the grant. This study
will impact future land development plans; traffic and transit issues will need to be addressed
regardless of who the developer is.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,2,"Page 2
There was one speaker on this item, Diane Lichtenstein, who praised the four workshops
outlined in the contract and requested that after each workshop a summary report to be generated
(perhaps in the local newspaper as well as the City's website). She also recommended
expanding the scope of the ferry analysis beyond the half-mile radius of the station as presently
indicated. She also requested that all drafts of the report be available electronically.
Approval of 2-C was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Status Report on East Bay Regional Park District Request for Long-Term Lease.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, stated that, at the September
ARRA meeting, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) representatives Doug Siden and Mike
Anderson indicated that EBRPD is ready to begin funding improvements at the 26-acre
Enterprise Park through the use of Measure AA and Proposition 12 money (totaling $500,000).
A portion of the Proposition 12 funds ($100,000) specify that land must be secured by the end of
this year, and the project must be completed and the money expended by the end of next year. It
also requires a 20-year lease on the land. According to the staff report, there could be a smaller,
Phase 1 lease or a lease for the entire 26 acres. There are several other leases in place that
encumber some portions of the 26 acres, including Alameda Soccer Club (until 2008) and the
Hobby Shop (until 2010).
Member Daysog mentioned that 11 years ago, there was concern that EBRPD wanted an RV
parking lot as part of their plan for this land. Ms. Potter confirmed that this is no longer an
option.
Doug Siden, elected EBRPD representative, reiterated the funding and timing requirements. He
introduced Mike Anderson, Assistant General Manager, who presented a map of the proposed
area and plans. It consists of 10.6 acres and excludes current leased properties. Ultimately, the
District would like the entire 26 acres but could start with this plan. Proposed plans include
family picnic sites, clean up of the tennis and basketball courts, development of the shoreline
trail to tie to the existing beach area, and clean up of the beach and boat launch areas. Future
plans include a natural planning resource area and interpretive center, as well as boating
instruction at the marina.
Chair Johnson pointed out that other community groups have looked at this site, and also
questioned what would happen if the community would rather keep some of the facilities as they
are. Mr. Anderson responded that if the City prefers to have more community input about use of
this area, EBRPD could either use $100,000 of the funds somewhere else in order to not lose
them - trimming their ultimate project to $400,000 - or use that first $100,000 to simply clean
up the beach area and shoreline trail. Chair Johnson stressed that more community feedback
about what type of use for the area is preferable is needed before committing to a 20-year lease.
Member Matarrese felt that the primary areas to spend the $500,000 should be the beach, bay
trail and picnic grounds. Mr. Anderson agreed that this should be doable and hoped to move",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,3,"Page 3
forward in negotiating a lease for these specific areas. Member deHaan expressed his desire that
EBRPD continue to be involved in the area and asked how the funding stream would be
maintained in the future. Mr. Anderson indicated that possibly a small assessment district would
have to be established if the project becomes larger. Member Matarrese stated that he would like
a long-term commitment from EBRPD for the area. The consensus among ARRA members and
EBRPD was the first priority is extending the Bay Trail from the boat ramp along the beach to
the Hornet; if additional funds remain, the other areas will be considered.
Member Matarrese motioned that EBRPD make improvements on the Bay Trail from the
existing boat ramp as far north as possible, including cleaning up the beach. If additional
funds remain, they would be used for the picnic area and former RV parking lot. Staff was
directed to negotiate a lease with EBRPD to accomplish this. Member Daysog seconded the
motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update.
Debbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an Alameda Point update
presentation to the Board. The presentation included a chronology of the ARRA's negotiations
with the Navy and an explanation to the community on how we went from ""no cost"" to paying
$108.5 million for the Navy property. Ms. Potter also discussed the master developer, APCP's,
election not to proceed with the project and presented staff's recommendation for an initial next
step.
Ms Potter summarized the genesis of how we got from a no cost EDC to a 108.5 million dollar
purchase price: She explained how the ARRA's PDC and the general plan call for over 3 million
square feet of commercial development. In January 2004, however, the Navy sent a letter
requesting that we submit a formal amendment to our ""no-cost"" EDC application to formerly
make the case about why we felt like we continued to be eligible for a ""no-cost"" EDC. The
Navy's letter further stated that it could not continue to work with us to negotiate on our early
transfer without such an amendment. The letter also said that they were more than happy to
negotiate a ""for-cost"" EDC with the ARRA. Because the Navy would be the ultimate entity to
deciding whether or not we were still eligible for the no cost EDC and because they had clearly
communicated to us that they felt we were no longer eligible and because legislation was in the
works to preclude no cost EDC's in the future, the ARRA made a decision that it would be more
effective if we sat down and negotiated with the Navy for a for-cost""conveyance. We started
our ""New Beginnings"" with the Navy in 2004 but the federal government also eliminated no cost
economic development in 2004 and none of the bases that are closed as part of the BRAC 5 are
going to eligible for a no cost economic development conveyance, most of those properties are
going to be disposed of as is where is. So it took us a little over 2 years to negotiate with the
Navy to prepare the PDC and to negotiate a land price. And in June of this year we concluded
negotiations with the Navy with a draft term sheet that included a $108.5 million dollar purchase
price. On September 21st, APCP withdrew from the project, citing the downturn in the
residential market and that they could no longer support the $108.5 million line price given the
land plan.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,4,"Page 4
With that negotiation process and chronology behind us, and the withdrawal of our Master
Developer, Staff is proposing, as the initial next step, that we test the market through a request
for qualifications (RFQ) process with the current term sheet. In the event that we are unable to
identify a replacement development then we would work with the Navy on an alternate
disposable strategy, most likely a public sale, an approach that the Navy had been taking of late.
Chair Johnson asked about the on-going work with the Navy, in the event that a buyer under the
current term sheet doesn't come forward. Ms. Potter answered that we will continue to run our
leasing program, and the Navy will continue to run it's environmental clean up program. Chair
Johnson also asked about the cost of working with the Navy to move forward with alternatives if
a replacement developer isn't identified. Ms. Potter explained that the ARRA's budget did
consider a scenario where the master developer didn't go forward and staff is funded in the
ARRA budget and consultants would probably need far fewer consultants then we've had when
we've been in activity negotiations on a term sheet and those kind of things, but we would still
need to work with our environmental consultant and our out side counsel, those costs are
included in the ARRA's budget.
To answer Chair Johnson's question about what types of consultants would we still continue to
need, Ms. Potter answered that we would continue to use an environmental consultant because
we comment on all of the Navy environmental clean up documents. Chair Johnson asked if we
should ask the Navy to pay for the consultants at that point.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, clarified that these are consultants that we use to
protect the City's interest when it comes to the work that the Navy's doing on clean up as well as
if there gonna be issuing opinions about the tidelands trust, then we need to have our experts
weighing in about the tidelands trust and where were believe the legal issues are and those kinds
of things.
Member Daysog began a discussion regarding the ARRA's no-cost EDC agreement with the
United States Navy. He referenced several paragraphs of the Navy's letter to Debbie Potter dated
April 7, 2003 regarding the basis for the Navy approval of a no cost EDC. Member Daysog is
very concerned about the $108 million purchase price, stating that if APCP couldn't work
it
through, that it would be difficult to find a replacement master developer. He'd rather see the
$108 million go toward public amenities that have been contemplated.
The Chair, Boardmembers and Staff discussed, at length, the challenges we faced and the
available options we continue to deal with in order to move forward. Member deHaan and Chair
Johnson discussed researching a concept that looks at phases in the future to anticipate changes
in the market. The Board also expressed their interest in going back to a no-cost EDC (build less
residential), but Ms. Potter explained that, according to the Navy, a no-cost EDC was dead,
because a project that included less residential was not economically viable. She said, however,
that if the ARRA desires, we could continue discussions with the Navy about convincing them
that were still eligible for our no cost EDC. She further discussed that the ARRA does have an
agreement, an executed MOA with the Navy, but that the Navy is going to require us to submit
an amendment to that no cost EDC.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,5,"Page 5
David Brandt further clarified the more fundamental legal problem which is, we would have to
amend our EDC application and unfortunately, the Navy will argue that there's no more legal
authority over a no cost EDC so we would be essentially be giving up our no cost EDC.
Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese would like more information and analysis about whether
we are legally able to hold the Navy to the existing no-cost EDC agreement.
Member Daysog expressed the importance of involving the public so that the $108 million isn't
spent on projects that veer so far away from the community resource reuse plan and the public
amenities that have already been contemplated. Ms. Potter addressed Member Daysog's concern
by noting that the negotiated price of $108.5 million was based on a proforma that provided
fiscal neutrality, provided for the sports complex, provided for the open space, provided for 25%
affordable housing, so all of the goals that has been identified over the years were taken into
account and provided for with that land purchase price. Granted that tax increment was pledged
to the project that was part of it too, but it provided in all of the transit, the shuttle, the ecopath is
all of the things that have been talked about over the last several years, were all accounted for in
the proforma that had the $108.5 million dollar land purchase price.
Member deHaan asked about the process used at other closed military bases, including Mare
Island and the Presidio. David Brandt explained that the Presidio was conveyed under a trust but
that federal legislation is needed for that. Mr. Brandt said that we could approach our delegation
to ask if that's feasible.
The first speaker on this item, Pam Telschow, expressed how glad she was that the ARRA was
going back to consider every option and that they are not just going to jump into looking for a
new Master Developer. Chair Johnson expressed her opinion that she felt it was a remote
possibility that another developer would just step right in where APCP left off. The second
speaker, Helen Sause, also echoed Ms. Telschow's concerns and the direction of the Board,
urging them to select and find those developers that have very deep experiences in commercial,
light industrial retail, and other forms of development. She also suggested that the selection
process involve the community. Chair Johnson wanted the public to have a full understanding
that although the Development Services Dept. has received numerous inquiries, those inquiries
may not be viable. The third speaker, Elizabeth Krase, recommended we find a master developer
that would keep keeps more of the historic buildings.
Member Matarrese commented that he is heartened by the attendance of tonight's meeting and
that it's very important that we also look at the strength of our controls on the planning and our
city restrictions on development. He further stated that the comments from the speakers are
valuable and would like to see them translated into where we go forward. Member Daysog
commented that it's absolutely vital for the City of Alameda through the ARRA to continue to be
a leader in converting the base and to not allow the Navy to be in the drivers seat through
a
public action process. There was further discussion about the caretaking of the property and
requesting that the Navy return to those responsibilities.
Debbie Potter summarized the direction from the Board and other issues to explore: researching
the legality and shear logistics of the numbers to see if we can revert back to a no-cost EDC; the",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,6,"Page 6
parallel path of moving forward with an RFQ process to see if there is a developer who wants to
step into the existing field; a public sale; federal legislation on a trust; caretaker issues, etc.
A motion to initiate an RFQ and to reevaluate all other options discussed was motioned by
Chair Johnson and seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese attended the September 7th meeting, highlighting issues regarding additional
radiological testing of sites 1,2, and 32. There was also an update on site 25, the Coast Guard
north housing and a observation of a violation of the marsh crust ordinance (trenching and
digging). Member Matarrese would like the City to investigate further.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Per Member Matarrese's earlier discussion of the RAB meeting regarding Site 25, Member
deHaan requested an update at the next regular ARRA meeting on the status of Site 25.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday. May 8, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:13 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 2007.
2-B. Review and approve all new and existing subleases at Alameda Point.
2-C. Disposition of Personal Property - Proposed Sale of 45 Foot Yard Tug Boat.
Item 2-C. was withdrawn. Approval of items 2-A and 2-B. was motioned by Member
Matarrese, seconded by Member Tam and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;
Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Consideration of Master Developer Partnership Agreement and Master Developer
Selection.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview on the
status of the of the Master Developer process. She summarized that, on April 4, the ARRA
selected Catellus and Lennar Urban as co-master developers and the Board requested they return
with a Partnership Agreement in 30 days. On May 2nd Catellus and Lennar submitted a non-
binding term sheet that described general provisions that would be included in a yet-to-be-
determined Operating Agreement. The term sheet contemplated a 60-day time frame for
completing the partnership agreement. The evaluation team reviewed the term sheet and
concluded that it raised more questions than answers regarding the potential to reach a
partnership agreement. Missing terms included: the use of third party equity capital, how
additional partners could be added, and what constitutes default under the agreement. Important
items deferred were remedies for breach of contract, dispute resolution, percentage of vertical
development reserved for each partner, etc. Concerns about the ultimate management structure,
cost of third party equity funds vs. self financing and approach to development resulted in the
determination that it was unlikely a partnership agreement can be negotiated that maximizes
timely, cost effective, market driven redevelopment of Alameda Point. Staff recommended that
the Board reconsider the partnership approach and select one master developer. Staff identified
Catellus as the better partner for ARRA as they are self financing and their minimum IRR
requirement is the lowest.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,2,"Page 2
Each of the master developer teams was given 10 minutes to make final comments (in this order:
Catellus, Lennar, and SunCal) before the Board began discussion of the item.
There was one public speaker, Richard Rutter, who discussed his support of staff's
recommendation to select one Master Developer.
The following motions were made:
Member Matarrese motioned to set aside the Partnership Agreement approach and select
just one Master Developer. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 4, Noes - 1 (Gilmore).
Member Matarrese motioned to appoint Catellus as the Master Developer. Motion was
seconded by Chair Johnson and failed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 2 (Matarrese,
Johnson), Noes - 3 (Tam, deHaan, Gilmore).
Member Tam motioned to select SunCal as the Master Developer. Motion was seconded
by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3 (Tam, deHaan,
Gilmore), Noes - 2 (Johnson, Matarrese).
3-B. Approve Draft Comment Letters on Record of Decision for Installation Restoration
Sites 1 and 25 and Authorize Executive Director to Submit Comment Letters to the
Navy.
At the last meeting, Member Matarrese asked staff to prepare comments on the draft ROD for
Sites 1 and 25. Member Matarrese requested that the bottom-line and desires of the ARRA is
stated right up front as an introduction of the letters.
Member Matarrese moved to approve the letters with the edit of repeating the end goal
right at the front of the letter. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report, as Member Matarrese was on vacation and did not attend the meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker, David Howard, who spoke about car-ownership for low income
individuals and families of the affordable housing development at Alameda Point.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,3,"Page 3
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:57 by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Have Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 7, 2008.
2-B. Approve the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement for St. George Spirits at Alameda
Point.
2-C. Approve a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Marc Associates to Extend the Term
for Seven Months and Add $45,000 for a Total Budget of $120,000 for Provision of
Intergovernmental Relations Services.
Vice Chair Tam abstained from Item 2-A (May 7 Minutes) because she was absent from
that meeting. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1.
The balance of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an update focusing
on legislation approved by the House, and pending in the Senate, regarding the conveyance of
Alameda Point. Staff worked with the Navy to pursue this legislation because they felt it was
necessary to streamline the conveyance of the property. Since 1993, there have been lots of
barriers and the strategy was to look at an approach that would be as efficient as possible in
conveying the property. The legislation outlines three possible options: 1) take the June 2006
negotiated draft term sheet with the Navy and provide a timeframe for allowing SunCal to work
with the Navy and ARRA on a Term Sheet that works for them to convey the property; 2)
provide a land price formula that SunCal could elect to pursue if they were interested in that land
price formula or felt that they couldn't work out a Term Sheet with the Navy on conveyance
terms, and; 3) in the event the master developer withdrew, allow the ARRA to work with the
Navy to auction the property. Special legislation is necessary due to public trusts lands which
preclude the Navy to auction the property on its own. If the bill passes, it will go into effect on
October 1st.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,2,"Member Matarrese requested that staff provide more detailed information under 'budget
consideration /fiscal impact', i.e., how much did we spend, did we exceed budget, etc. Ms.
Potter explained that all the activities undertaken by staff and consultants to prepare the
legislation is an eligible reimbursement activity pursuant to the ENA with SunCal, that all costs
are borne by SunCal. Member Matarrese would like to see these details in the staff report. He
also asked about the activities SunCal is currently undertaking. Ms. Potter discussed that SunCal
is
particularly focused on examining sea level rise on Alameda Landing and Alameda Point, fill
and geotechnical grading, updating the infrastructure numbers and hoping to have an updated
proforma in 2-4 weeks that reflect those numbers. SunCal is also working on scheduling
community meetings at the end of July or beginning of August, and on Sept. 19, their
Development Concept is due.
Member deHaan was hoping for more detail or progress report on each of the myriad activities
that SunCal is doing. Ms. Potter explained that staff heard the desire expressed by the Board last
month for a detailed progress report. She stated that SunCal will be back next month with a
detailed update the Board is looking for. Member deHaan clarified the purpose of the options of
the legislation and Ms. Potter affirmed his clarification.
Vice Chair Tam asked for clarification on the consent calendar item just approved regarding
increasing Marc Associates' budget. Ms. Potter confirmed that Marc Associates is the firm that
worked with staff and the Navy on this legislation, and that their entire effort is covered under
the contract amount of $120,000. In an effort to understand our coalition partners and how we
are stacked in the bill, Vice Chair Tam commented that the Alameda Point legislation Section
2851 is a small piece. Ms. Potter explained that the entire bill is approximately 1000 pages long
and Alameda Point is sandwiched between a number of other bases (all branches, not just the
Navy - including Army, Air Force, etc.) across the country that also have special legislation.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director further explained that, in Washington DC, there are
two acts: the Annual Defense Authorization Bill and the Annual Appropriations Bill, and there
cannot be an Appropriation for any activity without first having Authorization. He stated that
Marc Associates also works with the City and County of San Francisco and the League of Cities.
Chair Johnson commented on how effective Marc Associates has been on this defense
legislation.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A.
Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese reported that there was no RAB meeting between the last ARRA meeting and
this one. He did attend a walkthru of some of the sites on Saturday and has photos to share.
Member deHaan also attended the tour, which he said was presented as an overview on the
remediation of the sites, but the tour was sidetracked and the focus was more on the fish and
wildlife activities.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,3,"Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.
(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-013) Endorse ""Going Forward"" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going
Forward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public
Works Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and
project description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's
environmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of
conveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major
entitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands
Exchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The
workbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a
summary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled
next week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The
first and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and
a team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,
environmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM
Realty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for
longer term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State
Lands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There
will be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from
the Navy.
Member Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of
an RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property
management agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property
manager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done
yet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,2,"Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and
would like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope
for an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as
there is an economist on board.
The project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,
on their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative
(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their
longer term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be
implementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and
routes at Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be
discussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.
The Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.
Member Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the
EBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.
Vice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides
specificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore
also support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated
that the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.
Speakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,
Gretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.
Member deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point ""Going Forward"" Process.
Member Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve
Issuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy
City Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning
Services Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish
Balachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the
first draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to
finalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)
Developer RFQ.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the
decision-making process and selection of development team.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,3,"Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and
private development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of
developers to put forth recommendations.
Member Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.
The Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process
that would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the
design expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a
normal design and review process.
Member Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate
development experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer
evaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was
not required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to
weigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a
disadvantage.
Speakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.
Vice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time
period and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the
$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800
jobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on
facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those
host communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial
phase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the
Oakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-
cost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred
to LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of
Conveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it
will be title going to LBNL.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what
were the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create
some uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services
Manager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.
Vice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu
of other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,
reduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of
the initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.
Member Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to
generate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development
manager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the
tertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,
shopping, and sales tax.
The Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,4,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not
propose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on
potential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to
the table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the
financial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon
because there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of
other incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented
that owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has
discussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns
about load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.
Staff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is
short listed.
Member Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the
user goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of
Alameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,
which was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL
scenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.
Chair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The
Acting City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.
Member Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer
for the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square
feet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the
center and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the
environment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)
cement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that
he is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of
knowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.
The RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member
deHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going
Forward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be
able to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
Member Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy
during the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff
would ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.
Speaker: Gretchen Lipow
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,5,"None.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 3, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of October 16, 2007.
2-C. Approve a Five-Year Sublease with the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) at Alameda
Point.
2-D. Approve a Ground Lease at No Cost for Kids Chalk Art Project.
2-E. Approve General Release and Compromise Agreement with The Reuse People of America,
Inc.
Member deHaan pulled Item 2-B. (Oct. 16 Minutes) for discussion. The balance of the
Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member
Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, o abstentions.
Item 2-B: Member deHaan pulled this item because he wanted to clarify the action that occurred
at the Special Meeting of Oct. 16th. He specifically addressed the item discussed at this meeting,
Item 3-A. Establish an Alameda Point Advisory Task Force. The discussion that he understood
was that one member from each of the boards and commissions plus the Housing Commission
would be selected and that the individuals would report back to their commissions and boards.
At the recommendation of the Executive Director, Debra Kurita, Member Gilmore suggested we
hold approval of Item 2-B until Item 3-C (AP Advisory Task Force: Clarification of Roles and
Responsibilities) is discussed. Member deHaan said since he placed Item 3-C on the agenda, he
would pull it if Item 2-B is clarified.
Chair Johnson stated that 3-C should not be pulled and should be discussed because more
direction needs to be provided. Member Matarrese agreed with member deHaan to correct the
minutes first, and agreed with Chair Johnson to keep Item 3-C on the agenda for discussion.
Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, further clarified that in addition to the Housing
Commission member, that there would be a representative from the Climate Protection Task
Force as well. All Board members agreed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,2,"Chair Johnson recommended keeping Item 3-C on the agenda, affirmed by staff that it would be
helpful for further discussion.
Vice Chair Tam requested a correction of the 10/16 minutes to reflect that it was Member
Matarrese who seconded the motion, and not her.
Member Gilmore motioned for approval of Item 2-B with the following corrections: to
include full complement of the Boards and Commissions with one member representing his
or her Board/Commission's position and reporting back to that board or commission, and
this includes the Climate Protection Task Force and Housing Commission representatives;
and to reflect that Member Matarrese seconded the motion, and not Vice Chair Tam. The
motion was seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
There were two speakers on Item 2-D (Kids Chalk Art Project), Mark Wagner, who thanked the
Board for waiving the fee for the use of Alameda Point for the project; and Trish Spencer,
President of the Alameda PTA Council, who gave a brief explanation of the project, which
spotlights art and brings art to the students and families of Alameda schools. They plan to draw
the largest chalk project in the world.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Proclamation for Ken Hansen, Community Co-Chair of the FISCA RAB.
Chair Johnson proclaimed Nov. 7, 2007 as Ken Hansen Day in the City of Alameda, and
presented the Proclamation to Mr. Hansen. Mr. Jim Sweeney also presented Mr. Hansen with a
Letter of Appreciation from the US Navy, signed by Laura Duchnak, Director of the BRAC
Program Office. Mr. Mike Quillen of ERM presented a letter of appreciation and recognition to
the ARRA Board to honor Mr. Hansen for his contribution and achievements to the ARRA and
the City of Alameda.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief project update:
SunCal held its first community meeting on October 24th. There were over 200 members of the
community in attendance. SunCal introduced their team and gave a presentation which focused
on various constraints and work they have done so far. There were various technical consultants
on hand, and following the formal remarks, there was opportunity for the community to talk on a
one-on-one basis with the consultants. SunCal is preparing for a briefing with the Navy on 11/15
regarding their progress to date. The next meeting is scheduled on 12/13 at the O'Club at 6:30
p.m.
At the 10/16 Special ARRA meeting, there was a request that staff prepare a stakeholder process
for involving the folks that have special interest in Alameda Point. An off-agenda regarding this
item was distributed end of last week.
Chair Johnson asked if we are meeting the benchmarks in the process and keeping the timeline.
Ms Potter replied that so far, yes, and that SunCal has two mandatory milestones on the near
horizon, the first is March '08 when they have to submit a development concept, along with
infrastructure plan and business plan; and the next milestone is May '08 where they are required
to submit their draft master plan application.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,3,"from the Planning Dept.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, wanted clarification on the task force member role
to represent their board or commission.
Member Matarrese discussed that the memo distributed by Andrew Thomas regarding the roles
and responsibilities accurately captured the intent and purpose - which was to increase the
familiarity with all the boards and commissions of the plan when it's finished, so they are not
seeing it for the first time. The task force is responsible for two things: 1) report back, and 2)
advise SunCal on positions their boards and commissions have taken. It is a very clean and
efficient way of getting to the point of having the boards and commissions versed in the plan as it
is presented to them.
Vice Chair Tam expressed her concerns about the members of the task force being asked to
refrain from speaking at the Oct. 24th meeting until their roles and responsibilities were clarified.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,4,"She explained that it is not her view that we should deprive the advisory boardmembers of their
constitutional right to speak out or constrain them from sharing their views and experience. We
chose these people because of their expertise and their broad experience in Alameda and outside
- and that these boards and commissions have chosen them to help lead the discussion. It's
appropriate for them, once they're on the advisory task force, to interact productively with
SunCal to ask questions, and not simply be a human tape recorder.
Member Matarrese stated that his explanation of the roles of the task force members does not
preclude them from asking questions. Member deHaan added that the liaison to SunCal should
be staff, and not the task force member.
Andrew Thomas clarified that the advisory task force is an ad-hoc group, not a separate formal
commission. The task force meetings are the public workshop meetings - everything is publicly
noticed, there are no plans to hold ""task force"" meetings separate from the workshops.
Speaker, Bill Smith, spoke about various topics.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese was not able to attend the last RAB meeting and did not have a report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan requested further discussion on the Coast Guard Housing Surplus process be
placed on the next Regular ARRA agenda.
Member Matarrese also requested a report on all the fields at Coast Guard Housing. Deputy
Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that an off-agenda is in preparation regarding this issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
James Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-12-01,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:01 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 3, 2010.
2-B. Approve a Waiver of License Fees for American Red Cross, Bay Area Chapter at Building
8.
Member Gilmore moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Designate a Member of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board to
Serve as the New Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Representative.
Vice Chair deHaan offered to serve as the RAB representative.
Member Gilmore moved for approval to appoint Vice Chair deHaan as the new RAB
representative. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. Effective first RAB meeting in January 2011.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of November 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese addressed three key points: 1) The Navy will be revamping the records
Repository, including all of the Records of Decision (ROD), environmental studies,
presentations, and information on the history of characterization; 2) there was a presentation on
the draft final site investigation of the Federal Parcel Transfer, the south west portion of the
base. The Navy is completing the surveying; 3) Member Matarrese would like Member deHaan
and staff to continue tracking Sites 1, 2, & 32 on the north west side. These sites are the most
vulnerable parts of the base in that they have high ground water, are susceptible to sloughing
off into the bay, and are replete with radium T26 contamination. Member Matarrese stated it is
important the City take a position that the Navy should not leave any detectable radiation on the
site.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-12-01,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
6-A. Alameda Point Community Forums Update.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a presentation and an overview of the
community forums. She provided a link to the workbook that people can participate in the going-
forward process: ww.alamedapoint-goingforward.com
Speakers: Philip Tribuzio, Henry Hernandez
6-B. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board Composition: Options for New
Structure (continued from November 16, 2010).
The Interim City Manager provided a presentation to update the Board on the 'Going-Forward""
plan.
Speakers: Honora Murphy, John Knox White, Anne Spanier, John Spangler
There was confusion among the public regarding the topic of Item 6-B. Member Tam explained
that the confusion comes from the wording of the item. The item is an update of the Going-
Forward plan, and not a recommendation to change the ARRA Board Structure. Chair Johnson
further clarified that this item is not before the Board for a decision, and that the Interim City
Manager presented the item as an introduction of the concept, which the Board could either
pursue or abandon.
Member Gilmore expressed concern that there were advisory groups for Alameda Point that
were active for many years [Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG), Alameda Point Advisory
Commission (APAC)], but that they were ultimately dissolved by the ARRA. Member Gilmore's
concern was that expanding the ARRA Board meant putting important decisions in the hands of
non-electeds.
Vice Chair deHaan expressed concern that he didn't want his elected position to be undermined
by introducing a new structure or re-establishing an advisory group. It would be counter-
productive to the long-standing mechanisms currently in place.
Member Tam premised her statement by requesting that her comments be taken in the context
that she is giving her opinion, and not trying to develop consensus for direction. Member Tam
commented that the ARRA's amended bylaws and JPA included provisions to appoint an
advisory body, not a voting body. Member Tam suggested an approach that included the parks
and school districts (EBRPD and AUSD), the Peralta community; as they all have their own
governing boards. The representatives from each of these agencies would have accountability
and would foster democracy. Member Tam stated an expansion of the ARRA Board is
something that should not be pursued.
Member Gilmore and Vice Chair deHaan agreed with Member Tam and support the idea of
including other stakeholders.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-12-01,3,"The Interim City Manager suggested adding an element to the process -- a community forum for
principle stakeholders and other governmental agencies/bodies focused on government
regulations.
Member Tam requested that this issue be included as a future item where the Board can give
direction. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that it will be placed on the
February agenda.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Gilmore reminded staff that she requested a presentation regarding the commercial
real estate market as it exists.
Vice Chair deHaan stated that the ARRA should be involved in the City of Oakland's
discussions regarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Oakland A's stadium in Jack
London Square. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Vice Chair
deHaan that Alameda city planning staff is aware of the NOP and will be following it.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-D
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 16, 2004
2-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 2005
2-C. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 1, 2005
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore).
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the ""text-only"" changes made to the July 5th Draft
PDC. The changes were made in response to comments heard at the July and October 2005 ARRA
Board meetings. Mr. Thomas summarized the major changes and asked that the ARRA approve the
changes as well as other modifications to the text, and identify final revisions in order to bring a
finalized document back to the Board at its regular meeting in February 2006.
A summary of the changes included:
- clearer description of the purpose of the PDC, identifies it as a planning study and not a
regulatory document without any legally binding effect.
- there is more emphasis and clarity that the plan for Alameda Point is a mixed-use plan,
maintaining financial feasibility and historic preservation.
- recommending work-live ordinance.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,2,"Changes were made in the Introduction, Land Use and the Next Steps chapters emphasizing that it is
the City's goal to have a sustainable environmentally sensitive development at Alameda Point. The
Next Steps chapter outlines the key issues that are still going to require additional study, particularly
the compromises and trade-offs. There is more description about how the non-Measure A
alternative will be evaluated in the EIR process; and further exploration of maintaining historical
preservation, as well as financial possibilities surrounding the historic buildings. Also included are
the next steps to implementing the Transportation Strategy.
Two appendices, the Transportation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality (Appendix E), were also revised.
Member Gilmore allowed the several speakers to make their statements prior to the Board making
their comments. The speakers discussed various PDC-related topics, including Historic
Preservation concerns regarding the Big Whites and the Hangars; requests for additional buildings
identified for Historic Preservation be placed on the HAB agenda/study list for February, and to
request and Historic Preservation Master Plan and an Adaptive Reuse Study to be done soon, or as
part of the Navy's Section 106 process. Also discussed concerns about the Seaplane Lagoon
development encroachments and non-measure A alternatives. Consideration of Building 3 for the
Neptune Beach Amusement Museum was discussed.
Alameda School Board representative thanked staff and the ARRA board for including the issues of
school facilities in the PDC. Alternatives in Action representative discussed issues regarding the
early termination of their lease and the ARRA's request of them for removal of a portable building.
Member Daysog asked what were the major changes to Appendix E (Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality). Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that there was clarity added
to the language and that the financial feasibility study done for the first phase will be replicated for
subsequent phases. There will be a better understanding of the financial feasibility and fiscal
neutrality questions once we are clear on the development programs. Member Daysog further
discussed his concern regarding the Measure A and non-Measure A options, and Phase I revenue
generation. Mr. Proud explained that projections made in the document have a built-in fiscal
mitigation payment which will come directly from project proceeds to offset public expenditures and
public revenues that we collect. Member Daysog requested more detail and clarity on the property
taxes for use on a range of services; he also requested a better understanding on the fiscal mitigation
payment and operational issues.
Member deHaan addressed issues in the body of the PDC and, with the consensus of the other board
members, requested several action items to be completed by staff:
1. Expand the paragraph in the Next Steps chapter to elaborate on the Historic
Preservation - what the Navy is doing concurrent with us on their studies.
2.
Provide more clarity on the commercial development plan for the 336,000 sq. ft. of
retail and identify the commercial endeavors being pursued.
3. Provide separate analysis (off-agenda) on the HazMat clean-up, scenario of costs
between single family vs. multi family, etc. for financial feasibility.
4. Regarding the timeline and series of studies to be completed on the Historic
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,3,"Preservation: Emphasize the need to get information at the earliest possible date so that
the information could be used in the process of developing a plan which is then
ultimately evaluated in the EIR, and NOT when the final EIR comes out.
5. Appendix E - What would Phase I of Fiscal Mitigation payment be? And an
explanation of why we are not contemplating municipal services fee (like Bayport)?
6. Continued emphasis that this ""Preliminary"" plan document is a step to a ""Final' plan.
All Boardmembers accepted staff recommendation to bring back a Final version of the PDC in
February 2006.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Boardmember Matarrese reported on the RAB meeting from November because he did not attend
the Dec. meeting (he was attending D.A.R.E.) There was a presentation on the remediation
strategies for Site 27, between Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Nelson's Marine. There were a
wide range of options (9 remediation strategies), and there was a uniform recommendation and vote
to advise the Navy to use the most efficient and rapid remediation strategy.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Marilyn York, Barbara Bach, and Ken Robles of the Alameda Naval Air Museum spoke about their
proposed 10-year lease. Chair Johnson advised that they are looking forward to receiving the lease
for review but have not seen it come to the Board yet.
6.
COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
Boardmember Daysog requested the Board address Gail Greeley's issues regarding Home Sweet
Home and moving a portable building. Member Matarrese requested an off-agenda report
addressing this same issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,4,4,AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-01-05,1,"1
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:02 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Marie Gilmore
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Beverly Johnson
Vice Chair Rob Bonta
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-001) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 2010.
(*11-002) Approve a Waiver of License Fee for Michaan's Auctions for Use of Portions of
Building 20.
Member deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-A of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam
seconded the motion, which carried by voice vote - 4, Abstentions - 1 (Bonta).
Member deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-B of the Consent Calendar. Member 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.]
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-003) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of December 2, 2010 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan did not attend the December 2, 2010 RAB meeting and has no report.
Member deHaan will attend the next RAB meeting on January 6, 2011 and will provide a report
at the February ARRA meeting. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services will also
attend the January 6th RAB meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-004) Mayor Gilmore asked the Deputy City Manager - Development Services to provide an
update on the Lawrence Berkeley Lab (LBL) RFQ for a 2M square foot campus, with Alameda
Point in consideration. The RFQ was sent out on January 3 and is due March 4th. Staff and
a",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-01-05,2,"2
consultant team are working together to respond to the RFQ. Placeholders have been put on all
Council/ARRA agendas before the March due date in case policy direction is needed. The
Deputy City Manager - Development Services summarized the RFQ, stating that the initial
phase is for 500,000 sq. ft. of space. Staff is working closely with the Navy (property owners)
on policy issues that may need to be discussed with the Board. The short list will be in April.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services will discuss the developer solicitation
process on the 18th in response to the RFQ, and before the short list. Other bases have been
jump-started by large institutional user like LBL, it is a great catalyst and opportunity to get
Alameda Point started.
Member Johnson asked about the location and competitors. The Deputy City Manager
-
Development Services responded that the location was very specific: 20 - 25 minutes from
blackberry gate; and that the biggest competitor is LBL's own property at Richmond Gild
Station, 90 acres along the waterfront. The cities of Berkeley and Emeryville are also included.
Member deHaan inquired if LBL is looking for land site or adaptive reuse. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that since LBL needs state of the art R&D facilities,
they want to find new construction. In initial conversations, the area that stands out is the area
south of Atlantic. Construction would start in July 2013 in areas without cleanup issues. Chair
Gilmore requested the RFQ be posted on the City's website so that the Board can access it and
be prepared to get questions answered.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the Golden Gate Yacht Club and
Oracle Racing announced that the America's Cup #34 will be held in San Francisco in 2013. In
anticipation of the event, staff sent event organizers a letter reemphasizing the city's support for
the San Francisco bid, and where Alameda can be helpful, i.e., host supportive services on
Alameda Point for the America's Cup - hangars, ferries, potential economic benefit, strong
marine industry, sailing syndicates, and being involved in the planning process.
Member deHaan asked if the Board is taking the lead with regard to the community support
efforts, or if there is a separate professional organization taking the lead. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services replied that it has been a cooperative effort - specific
community members are involved in the maritime and sailing world and have the connections
that staff doesn't. There are shared ideas and support. The City and staff lends credibility as a
government entity to their interests.
The Acting City Manager discussed the website which was developed by a community member
who is connected to the sailing world and is leading the charge, working with the City for bigger
mobilization in support of America's Cup #34. The business community wants to get involved,
and a partnership of residents, business and the city could help bring some aspect of the event
to Alameda.
Member Bonta commented on the amazing efforts from the community, recognizing Jack
Boeger and Bob Naber. Member Bonta stated that he looks forward to working with staff and
the community to maximize this opportunity and realize the full potential economically and
otherwise.
Member Tam requested to be informed of any opportunities for the elected body to get involved.
Chair Gilmore requested that updates of the event be placed as a regular item on the ARRA
agenda.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-01-05,3,"3
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
(11-005) Referral from Chair Gilmore to change the order of the ARRA meetings.
Member Johnson moved to approve the referral to change the order of the ARRA
meetings. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
(11-006) Member Tam commented that with the emerging opportunities, the ARRA should focus
on reshaping its Going Forward process and be more ""shovel ready""- more prepared with
property, parcels, and infrastructure to maximize its competitiveness at Alameda Point.
Chair Gilmore requested a timeline of the Going Forward process so that the Board and the
public can makes comments and any changes necessary. The Deputy City Manager -
Development Services stated that an update will be presented at the 2/2 ARRA meeting, and
the ARRA predevelopment budget would be presented at the 2/15 mid year budget adjustment.
Member deHaan asked if staff has interfaced with the new owners of Catellus, TPG Capital LP.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that the Economic Development
Director and City Manager were getting up to speed with the new partner. A designated project
manager is working with staff. TPG Capital will likely need to come to the Council/CIC because
they are changing the development entity in agreement with the CIC. The Deputy City Manager
- Development Services discussed that there will be a staff report, update, and presentation
from the new partner in the next couple of months.
Member deHaan inquired about the interview timeline for the Alameda Point RFQ consultants.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that there were two days of
interviews with four consultants: real estate economics, master planning, sustainable design
and green infrastructure consultants, and transportation consultants. Contracts will be
negotiated in January and will be brought back as part of the mid year budget adjustment to
demonstrate to the ARRA how the project will be paid for. There are also plans to come back
with community feedback in March.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-05-19,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 1, 2009.
2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Extension for General Services
Administration at Alameda Point.
2-C. Accept the Interim Executive Director's Statement of Emergency Regarding Expenditures
for the Fire at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Approve the Project Budget
Item 2-C was pulled by Member Tam for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar
was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed
by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.
Item 2-C - Member Tam asked for clarification on whether or not the debris retrieved was
tested. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, explained that the debris was tested by
quarter, and not tested individually, because the intent is to haul everything off. Member Tam
also asked what kind of thresholds should be met to determine whether it was cleaned
accurately. Ms. Little stated that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) set
the standards for the cleanup.
Vice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese expressed concerns that the ARRA is now footing
the $1.6M bill for the demo of the burned building. They discussed Catellus' DA which obligates
them to do demolition, which included this building. Ms. Little explained that they're not
obligated to do the demo because they have not moved forward with any initial phase. She
further explained that an issue such as this is an unanticipated cost which clearly demonstrates
what these do to the fund balance.
Member Matarrese requested that the cost be transferred to the project and that Catellus
remain obligated to reimburse the ARRA. He requested the City Attorney provide feedback on
the proper legal options we have so that the project becomes encumbered. Terri Highsmith,
City Attorney, understood the direction and will provide the information requested.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of Item 2-C with the provision of receiving
feedback from legal counsel on the possibilities of encumbering the cost to the project.
Member Tam seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-05-19,2,"3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
4.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese attended the last RAB meeting and had
concerns about the Navy's cleanup direction - whether it is predicated on the PDC, or if
the Navy is remediating according to SunCal's concept plan. Member Matarrese
requested clarification of their method and also requested this item be agendized and
brought back to the ARRA at its next regular meeting.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-07-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The meeting convened at 8:20 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 3, 2009.
2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Vigor Marine, LLC at Alameda
Point.
2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht Co., Inc.
at Alameda Point.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Puglia Engineering of
California, Inc. at Alameda Point.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by Vice
Chair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of June 4th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese was unable to attend the June 4th meeting in which the OU-2 feasibility
study was discussed. The July RAB meeting is cancelled, so Member Matarrese will report on
the August Meeting.
Member Gilmore asked a question about the RAB's decision to have a facilitator from the Navy
to assist in conducting effective meetings. She was curious of the genesis of the idea, since the
RAB has been in existence for many years, why only now is the Navy providing a facilitator?
RAB member Michael Torrey stated that this is not the first time that the Navy is providing a
facilitator, but that the previous ones had to be cut due to funding issues. George Brooks, the
Navy's Environmental Coordinator, asked if there could be another facilitator. Member
Matarrese explained that the RAB Board changed and agreed that it was a positive step for the
RAB.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-07-07,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair deHaan asked for an update on the SunCal milestones. Assistant City
Manager, David Brandt, stated that there is a payment requirement due on July 19th, , and
qualified signatures, or an alternative plan, was due in mid September for the City Council
to accept. The Navy requirement is now July 2010.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m., by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-07-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:21 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Responses to Questions Posed by the ARRA Board at the May 6th, 2010 Special ARRA
Meeting Regarding the United States Navy's Environmental Program at Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore requested additional information regarding the VA transfer and related
agreement in response to the May 25, 2010 letter from the Navy which addressed the questions
from the May 6th meeting. Staff stated that the information will be provided at the next ARRA
meeting.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of June 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese gave an overview of the June 3rd RAB meeting. He discussed the summary
of the radiological surveys and clean ups that have been done at Fed sites 1 and 2. He also
discussed the Bldg. 5 storm drain which was removed because of radium contamination, and
that additional contamination was found in other storm drains; and site 17 sediment sampling of
the seaplane lagoon. Member Matarrese stated that there is a new schedule of evaluation and
remediation that runs from Aug thru Nov of 2010.
Member Matarrese discussed two commentary papers prepared by RAB member and physical
engineer, George Humphreys. One of the papers was on basewide radiological contamination,
and the other on site 25 ground water plume above the FISC near Coast Guard Housing,
Tinker-Stargell extension.
There is a Navy-sponsored tour of the sites on Saturday, July 17 from 9-11:00 a.m. Interested
parties can go to the BRAC website to sign up.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
09-01-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-07-07,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Jon Spangler, discussed clean-up of Alameda Point. He inquired what will happen
with everything that is above-ground at Alameda Point, the crumbling infrastructure, buildings
that were built with toxic materials, and contaminated buildings. He asked who will pay for
remediation and up-keep if SunCal's contract is not renewed.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Considering the investigatory report against Councilmember Tam, Vice-Chair deHaan offered to
attend the League of California Cities meeting as the alternate representative for the City of
Alameda. He asked if this issue should be agendized for the next regular Council meeting.
The General Counsel clarified that because Vice Chair deHaan is already the alternate, no
official action is required, but if the Board would like to take a vote, this cannot happen tonight
and would have to be at another meeting. Member Matarrese concurred with Vice-Chair
deHaan and requested this issue be agendized for the next council meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-08-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 9:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Absent: Boardmember Marie Gilmore
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 18, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority/Community Improvement Commission of July 18, 2007.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o
noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve a 12-Month Contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in the
Amount of $185,000 to Provide Negotiation Support and to Conduct a Fiscal Impact
Analysis for the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Leslie Little gave an overview of the contract and work scope of Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS), explaining that they will assist in developing the business plan and fiscal impact
assessment for Alameda Point. Leslie affirmed Chair Johnson's question about whether the cost
will be reimbursed by SunCal. Member Matarrese clarified that, since EPS is the current
financial consultant under contract with the ARRA, this is an extension of that contract. Chair
Johnson encouraged holding negotiation briefings and sessions in open session, to the extent
possible, in order to keep the public better informed on significant issues. Member Matarrese
agreed and complimented staff, stating that having the last ENA negotiations right in full public
view was successful.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the contract, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), 0 noes, 0
abstentions.
3-B. Authorize Executive Director to Initiate Negotiations for a Short Term Large Parcel
Lease and Caretaker Agreement for the Former Alameda Naval Air Station North Housing
Complex",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-08-07,2,"David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, summarized to the Board that the Navy's caretaker
obligations for the former North Housing Complex will expire in September, and recommends
that the ARRA assume caretaker and maintenance responsibilities. He discussed that it would be
a simple conveyance to gain control of the property so that it can be leased. The property is still
fully operational but deteriorating rapidly. Mr. Brandt discussed the BRAC process: as soon as
the property is declared as surplus, the Local Reuse Authority (ARRA) is responsible for
screening the property. This process could take as long as a year, but there are several options
for conveyance, including a public benefit conveyance for the park, a homeless accommodation
request, or negotiated EDC for cost. Chair Johnson suggested trying to acquire all the property.
Member deHaan questioned the legal ramifications for the conveyance process, and taking over
with a no-cost EDC. Mr. Brandt explained that the Navy's position is that they are not governed
by the old BRAC rules - that they are applying the post-2005 ""No no-cost EDC"" rules. All
Boardmembers agreed that the ARRA should move forward expeditiously in order to preserve
the parkland and prevent further deterioration of the property.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the staff recommendation with further direction
to convey the entire property (Marina Village and North Housing complex) to the City.
The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4
ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o noes, o abstentions.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith spoke about various topics including clean-up problems, liquefaction, and the surplus
housing at former North Housing.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed a side trip tour he had of Fort Ord with Mr. Michael Houlimard, and
compared the Fort Ord redevelopment project with the Alameda Point project. Member deHaan
explained that at Fort Ord, they are only redeveloping 8 acres (out of 28,000 acres) of disturbed
land. The rest became one habitat or recreation areas. He expressed how successful the Fort Ord
project is because they focused on their award-winning Community Reuse Plan, which, to their
benefit, had many special interests, including the University of California and two major retail
operations, one lifestyle and one big box. Even the Army itself wanted to retain some of the
property. Member deHaan further explained that Fort Ord's reuse authority could dissolve in the
next two years, since their cash flow has put them into a positive, quite contrary to where
Alameda Point is. Fort Ord has also begun building a phase of housing units around the existing
golf course (there will be 12,000 residential units total); there is one hotel and another bid for a
Ritz Carlton. Member deHaan attributes the success of the Fort Ord project to their focus on the
community reuse plan, their expedient manner and that they did not veer from that plan.
Member Matarrese suggested agendizing a report of the Fort Ord project as an update and called
to move the agenda.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:34 by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:26 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 10, 2008.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 1, 2008.
2-C. Approve a Permanent Waiver of License Fees for Alameda Unified School District Student
Activities.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Building 43 & Associates,
Inc. at Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member
deHaan, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - O.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, summarized SunCal's
submission of Development Concept pursuant to the ENA on September 19th. During October,
SunCal presented its Development Concept to eight boards and commissions, and received
feedback. Comments received were provided in the staff report and presented to give the ARRA
an opportunity to follow-up on the comments from the boards and commissions, provide
feedback, and to hear additional comments from the public. The draft Master Plan, a more
detailed land plan, is due to on Dec.19, and will be presented to the ARRA Board at its January
7th regular meeting.
As SunCal has indicated, the current land plan has residential densities beyond those permitted in
Measure A, therefore, SunCal would need a vote of the people to implement its land plan. They
have until April 30, 2009 to decide to pursue a ballot initiative. Business terms between SunCal
and the CIC is due by June 2010. There is a Council resolution of Fiscal Neutrality mandated for
base reuse, so a project proforma, an analyses of project cost and revenues to determine project
feasibility, is being prepared. Alameda Point is within the APIP redevelopment area. When
Alameda Point is conveyed, that new development will generate revenue and value, which will
result in incremental increase in property taxes paid. The project must create the value to
generate the tax increment that the CIC can then choose to invest in the project. There is no tax
increment without project, therefore it is not possible to determine which tax increment funds, if",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-05,2,"any, are available without completing the project proforma and negotiating a DDA, which is due
in June 2010. The CIC has made no commitment of funds to the project. Its only obligation is to
negotiate in good faith on both the land plan and public./private partnership until the ENA
expires in June of 2010. The DDA must be approved by the City Council and the CIC; and until
the DDA is approved, it is not possible for the CIC to commit funds to the project. Under the
terms of the ENA, SunCal is paying for all city staff costs and third party consultant costs
consistent with the requirement for the fiscal neutrality that we demand.
Member Matarrese referred to the comments included in the staff report and stated that it was
important to make a distinction whether the points being raised were from the boards or from
individuals.
Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager gave the presentation. The presentation
will be made available on SunCal's website. At the conclusion of the presentation, Chair Johnson
called all of the speakers first:
Corinne Lambden - concerned about the historical relevant structures, and would like Board to
consider all options of adaptive reuse before permanently destroying them. Mary Fetherolf -
thanked SunCal for the presentation and asked a couple of process questions about where to find
the financial models and assumptions of the project, and about the draft Master Plan. Elizabeth
Krase - spoke on behalf of AAPS. She discussed concerns about the historic buildings planned
for demolition, stating that it's not acceptable. Doug Biggs - APC has enjoyed participating in
the SunCal community process and supports SunCal's plan. 'Chelle Fredrick - excited to see
the progress that has been made, encouraged by the plan that acknowledges the unprecedented
potential of Alameda point yet still recognizes the constraints. Diane Lichtenstein - echoed what
Mi'Chelle Frederick said. Interested in how the development will happen, and would like to see
more of the integration and diversity in the types of housing and structures. Helen Sause -
congratulated Member deHaan and Member Gilmore for their re-elections. Had a request that the
city undertake an active role in developing the transit system which addresses the whole island.
Gretchen Lipow - discussed fiduciary responsibility of the Alameda Point project. Nancy
Heastings - from HOMES, complimented SunCal on its transit oriented design, and wanted to
know the date and review process for the transportation plan. John Knox White -requested the
ARRA really give direct direction to SunCal as to what they would like to support before the
process moves forward. He discussed that we cannot try to react to the market, we need to look
at something that has that flexibility, and a plan we can be proud of in 50 or 100 years. Arthur
Lipow - discussed the poor economy and traffic mitigation issues, and suggested an alternative
of a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust that could have productive uses of the structures.
Susan Decker - supports SunCal's plan and the flexibility in their process. Encouraged that it
would produce something that is truly an asset to Alameda. Michael Krueger - agreed with most
of the speakers and is supportive of SunCal's plan.
Chair Johnson explained that this meeting has to be recessed in order to reconvene the PUB
meeting of earlier.
Meeting was recessed at 9:15 p.m. by Chair Johnson. All Board members agreed that Item
3-A (SunCal's Development Concept) and the balance of the 11/5 agenda be continued at a
Special ARRA Meeting scheduled on November 18, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
ArmaElidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-05.pdf