body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-01-02,2,"review will continue over the next 12-18 months. The conclusion of the peer review thus far is
that there are issues for which SunCal will discuss the mitigation techniques. SunCal has met
with multiple federal agencies, and their meeting with the Navy was to introduce them to the
concept that the PDC didn't work, and, as the existing term sheet is predicated on the PDC,
SunCal will come back to the Navy in Jan-Feb with an outline on their strategy. Mr. Keliher
explained that the Alameda Point project is very complex, but nothing that is insurmountable.
Member deHaan expressed concern with economics of the project and what issues SunCal was
anticipating will be covered at the next public meeting. Mr. Keliher stated that it is SunCal's job
to present more specifics on each of the different planning concepts, i.e., Measure A, non-
measure A, or a hybrid of these two, etc.
Member deHaan stated that the loose ends and driving force was the transportation issue. Mr.
Keliher agreed that the transportation issue was a trigger and that it would take several years and
a
lot of different agencies involved to tie up this loose end. Member deHaan commented that the
public meetings were well-received.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese attended the 12/6/07 meeting and the main agenda item was a summary
handout of 2007 activities and a look-forward to 2008 with remediation at Alameda Point. He
provided the handout, ""Environmental Progress at Alameda Point"" and requested that it be
provided to ARRA members and posted on the City's website. He requested that the map
identifying the sites be included with the handout.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-02-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 6, 2008- 7:01 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:55 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:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA was briefed and discussed price and terms. The Board provided instruction
to staff. No action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:35
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
February 6, 2008",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-02-06.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,2008-05-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Absent: Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 5, 2008.
2-B. Approve Sublease for Delphi Productions at Alameda Point.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions:
o
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of Quarterly Update of Project Master
Scheduled Prepared by SCC Alameda Point LLC.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an update as
required in the ENA project master schedule. In March, ARRA voted to provide a six month
extension to the mandatory milestones in the ENA, and added additional requirements of a
consultant costs account. She informed that Suncal has deposited the required funds pursuant to
the amended ENA and are moving forward to achieve the first milestone, the Development
Concept, in September. The second activity concluded Monday evening, the May 5th
Community Meeting on Transit Oriented Alternatives, an MTC-funded stationery master plan.
The meeting included discussions on principles and land use policies that would encourage
transit-supportive development at Alameda Point and ways the master developer could evaluate
those principles.
Member deHaan directed questions to Mr. Pat Keliher, SunCal's project manager for Alameda
Point. Member deHaan asked whether staff and SunCal have a mechanism to recognize and
track SunCal's progress, because the project is a monumental task. Mr. Keliher explained that
the build-up is to September of the Development Concept. SunCal meets weekly with staff and
provide monthly updates at the ARRA meetings, and there's an upcoming community meeting
planned. Debbie Potter further explained that staff and SunCal recognize that when ARRA
approved the six month extension, there was a requirement, in addition to the quarterly deposit,
to spend $117,000/month for consultant services. Staff is able to monitor what activities SunCal
is doing with their consultants to move the planning effort forward. David Brandt, Deputy
Executive Director, stated that given the compressed schedule, staff is not anticipating any
interim products other than meeting materials, no sub plans, etc. Member deHaan discussed his",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-05-07,2,"understanding of using monetary expenditure as a baseline, but was concerned that spending
money doesn't necessarily mean progress. He would like a break-down in more incremental,
more defined product. Mr. Keliher acknowledged Member deHaan's concerns, and offered to
choose core topics that ARRA would like to have reports on, and speak about substantive issues
at the meetings. Chair Johnson discussed that the milestones are already in place and it's not
necessary to add extra ""interim' milestones. Member deHaan explained that all he's requesting
is for SunCal to stick with timeline, report on current activities, and provide a progress report on
key issues and accomplishments. Member Gilmore requested a brief description, and to provide
context for what's going on, rather than just the dry milestones that are shown on the chart.
Member Matarrese agreed and said it is worthwhile to list whether we're behind, or on, schedule;
and to show progress on something that is significant as a milestone so that the public can
anticipate what's going to happen. It is also useful to check things off. Member deHaan
expressed that he just doesn't want to see SunCal in the same position they were when they had
to request an extension, as September is approaching quickly. Member Gilmore requested no
powerpoints, explaining that time spent making the presentation should not take away from time
spent working on the project. Mr. Keliher agreed.
There was one public speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke on various topics, including public transit.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese was unable to attend the meeting and did not have a report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan provided feedback and expressed his concerns about the May 5th community
meeting regarding Transit Oriented Alternatives. He was concerned that the poor turnout was
due to lack of publicity about the meeting, that notice of the meeting was not posted on the main
bulletin board at City Hall, and there was no newspaper release, except for a 1/8 page
advertisement. He discussed that last year's meeting on the same topic, held at Mastick Senior
Center, had strong community input, lots of interest, lots of dialogue and the community was
engaged. It was well-publicized and got the community talking about the issue. Debbie Potter
explained that the meeting was noticed on the Alameda Point website, and an email blast to all
previous interested-party lists was sent, as well as an email blast to SunCal's list. There was also
a 1/4 page advertisement which ran three times in the newspaper. She acknowledged that the
notice was not posted on the bulletin board; but that the methods of publicity for this meeting
were actually the same, if not more, than what has been done in the past, with the addition of
SunCal's email list, and has been an effective way of notifying people who have interest.
Member deHaan expressed the importance of public relations and requested he receive the
handouts prior to the meetings.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-05-07,3,"Respectfully submitted,
Aira Ridden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.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,2008-07-01,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The meeting convened at 12:44 a.m. (7/2/08) 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
(Chair Johnson was absent at the time of roll call, returned at approximately 12:50 a.m.,
during Item 3-A)
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 4, 2008.
2-B. Approve a Sublease for Stafford Stafford Sent Packing at Alameda Point.
2-C. Accept a $128,000 Grant from the Federal Office of Economic Adjustment in Support of
the North Housing Parcel Screening Process and Authorize the Executive Director to
Execute Related Documents.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions:
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief update on
Alameda Point activities. She stated that the highlight was the meeting that SunCal and ARRA
staff had with Navy staff in San Diego on June 5th. Discussions included talking to Navy staff
about beginning a process to kick off renegotiation of the term sheet, and the Navy has embraced
a schedule that will get us to a term sheet by July 2009. SunCal has been working over past 6-8
weeks on land use and infrastructure assumptions, and the costs associated with the infrastructure
proposals. Staff has also been working on the Federal legislation which was the focus of the
update at the last meeting. Not much has changed, legislation was passed by the House in May,
and is now awaiting activity in Senate. The Senate has not yet addressed the authorization bills,
but we expect that it will happen in the next couple of weeks. Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher,
SunCal's project manager on the Alameda Point project, to answer questions from the Board.
Member deHaan asked whether the language revisions on the legislation had been ironed out.
Ms. Potter explained that the revisions were made reflective of the direction from the ARRA and
that the Navy and the VA are currently reviewing the proposed changes.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-07-01,2,"Member Matarrese requested, for the public, that Ms. Potter comment and describe the letter the
Navy sent to the ARRA in response to the ARRA's request for funds to provide services to
Alameda Point. Ms. Potter explained that the Navy sent the ARRA a response that there is a 50
year Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) Agreement that allows us to lease the
property, collect revenue, and use the lease revenues for maintenance of the property. The Navy
further stated that they did not anticipate revisiting the terms of the LIFOC for maintenance
activities.
Member Tam asked if the Navy is implying we increase our lease rates in order to generate the
necessary funds we were requesting. Ms. Potter replied that that was the conclusion the Navy
has eluded to, but that they were not offering to step in, nor did they offer any options to
augmenting anything.
Member deHaan expressed his concern and dissatisfaction with the Navy's response - given that
the property is in a state of deterioration and does not make economic sense - and requested
further discussion. Chair Johnson agreed and requested the item be agendized and brought back
for discussion at the next ARRA meeting.
Pat Keliher gave a brief update on the high level topics, including infrastructure, baseline
assumptions, and mitigation on some of the issues. He stated SunCal's goal for their consultants
and City Staff to agree on baseline assumptions, which affect the entire land plan. He's
optimistic that progress is being made to achieve that goal. The number one issue that SunCal
and City staff has agreed on was what to assume for global warming, sea level rise and the
design parameter, which is 18 inches - a reasonable baseline to set design standards. All of the
land plan will be based on that assumption. Another important issue is the Floodplain and
mitigation. SunCal is evaluating the pros and cons of three main options: 1) elevate everything,
2) levy systems, or 3) a combination of the both. Mr. Keliher further discussed that their
Environmental consultants are working with the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to agree upon what these agencies will
allow SunCal to build - housing? housing over retail? What are the requirements? SunCal is
slowly getting answers from the agencies. Another high level topic is the Sports Complex -
Nick Kosla of SunCal has been working with Dale Lillard, Recreation and Parks Director, to
identify and interview three master planners for the Sports Complex. They are hoping, that in
the next week or two, to select a master planner and begin the public process. The next
community meeting is scheduled on August 7th, which will include a summary of the last
meeting and new information to date, as well as information on the Sports Complex. There is
also a plan to schedule the next meeting with the Navy at the end of July to discuss the Business
Model and Plan.
Mr. Keliher informed the Board that SunCal has conducted a survey on most of the existing
historic buildings to determine if their floor is above floodplain. Some hangars are still in the
floodplain, but most are out, including City Hall West. The survey gave SunCal an important and
good datapoint which is useful in evaluating their adaptive reuse formula.
Mr. Keliher concluded by informing the Board that SunCal has a new capital partner, which they
will bring back to the Board in August.
There was one speaker on this item, Bill Smith, who discussed several topics, including the 18-
inch baseline.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-07-01,3,"4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese did not have a report, as the next RAB meeting in on Thursday, July 3rd
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Chair Johnson reported that she attended the Spring Meeting for U.S. Conference with Mayors,
and that it was very good. Member Tam asked if Chair Johnson had the opportunity to meet
Senator Obama. Chair Johnson said she heard and saw Senator Obama speak, but did not meet
him. She did, however, get Bill Clinton's autograph.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m. (7/2/08) by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Arma Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:27 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 Joint Meeting of the City Council, ARRA, and CIC of
August 19, 2008.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: O.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with St. Francis Electric for
Pier 2 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a contract not to exceed $1,344,744.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, gave an overview of the item and discussed the
Spring 2006 sublease of MARAD approved by the ARRA for 20 years for use of the piers at
Alameda Point. Pier 2 is an older, unreliable facility, and doesn't comply with current standards.
To upgrade to code, the underground transformers would need to be relocated above ground to
meet Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) requirements. In January 2007, the ARRA approved
design work for the electrical upgrade for Pier 2 improvements and the project was bid. A bid
was received for $1.7M for the project. The Board then directed staff to revise the project to
reduce the total cost. Staff and MARAD worked closely with AP&T to revise the technical
requirements to just upgrade the existing systems, which reduced the project cost significantly
for the next bid. Three bids were received, with St. Francis Electric with the lowest bid at
$1.29M. Staff is requesting approval to add a 5% contingency with add-on alternative for
concrete x-raying and independent testing for the Pier 2 Electrical upgrades, for a total cost not
to exceed $1,344,744.
Member Matarrese commented that the impact to the ARRA budget is that we are + $400,000,
and asked how much the ARRA owes to the City General Fund. Ms. Little replied that the
ARRA has two loan obligations, 1) ARRA debt obligation of $2.4M, and 2) the Alameda Point
Improvement Project (APIP) of $1.258M. Member Matarrese recommended it be considered
that the $400,000 be paid back to General Fund as part of a loan payment. Ms. Little explained
that the ARRA currently carries that as an expenditure, and it would go back to the General Fund
Reserve.
Staff and the Board discussed the ARRA lease revenues, and how they are not sufficient to cover
expenditures in totality. Member Gilmore asked whether there were any other large capital",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,2,"projects that were going out for bid on this year. Ms. Little replied that the last roof repair project
was finished, as well as the preliminary assessment of the pier conditions, and that work will be
scheduled to start the piling and pier replacements. The greatest issue is that there are old
systems at Alameda Point - if there were a water or sewer problem or other major activity, we
need cash on hand to resolve those issues.
Member Matarrese expressed his concern that we're funding infrastructure that doesn't belong to
us, the City doesn't own the property, it still belongs to Navy. We're adding value to what the
Navy is putting a high price tag on. He stated that he would much rather put that money toward
unfunded liabilities of General Fund services. Member Gilmore agreed, stating that, in theory,
should we have a major system malfunction, there are tenants that pay to cover these issues.
There should be a balance while we're in a holding position with the Navy.
Vice Chair Tam motioned for approval of the Contract with St. Francis Electric, the
motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5,
Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3-B. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of the Draft Development Concept.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Pat Keliher and
Peter Calthorpe, Urban Designer, who presented a powerpoint presentation of the draft
development concept to the Board and public. The presentation can be viewed at
www.alamedapointcommunity.com. After the presentation, Chair Johnson opened the item to
the Boardmembers for discussion. Member Matarrese asked if both plans assume a $108M
payment to the Navy, to which Ms. Potter replied, ""yes.""
Member Gilmore asked Mr. Calthorpe for more specific information regarding his comment on
the importance of phasing the transportation enhancements so housing could keep pace with the
capacity in the tube, asking if it can work, and when we will know. Pat Keliher, SunCal's
Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that Fehr & Peers, their Transportation Consultant, is
doing a detailed study on the traffic improvements and what the triggers are for the
enhancements. Mr. Keliher further stated that there is $90M worth of traffic improvements up to
the 4000 unit threshold, and that Fehr & Peers plan to have a public meeting focused specifically
on the transportation issues.
Chair Johnson asked if the Sports Complex will be part of the SunCal Presentation, to which Mr.
Keliher replied, ""yes."" He said that the Business Plan will include the commercial and retail
assumptions. Mr. Calthorpe added that the core area has to be built last, that a Main Street
environment cannot be built until the retail demand is in place.
Chair Johnson opened discussion to the public speakers. There were several speakers, most of
whom were in favor of supporting SunCal's plan. The ones that were not in favor of the SunCal
plan were concerned about the density of proposed mid-rise (12-20 story residential units), non-
Measure A compliance, and transportation issues.
Member deHaan requested Mr. Keliher verify that the density of Alameda on the west end,
specifically the Summer Homes, was 30 units per acre and three-stories high. His concern
regarding the density was the Tube traffic and the alternative of bringing the bus service through
the Tube. Mr Keliher assured member deHaan that all these details are currently being vetted
out with Fehr & Peers and will be presented at their public meeting. Ms. Potter further explained
that there is always only going to be two lanes in the tube, and what one of the alternatives is, is
for a queue-jump lane for the bus, which doesn't require additional lanes. The queue-jump lane",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,3,"gives priority to the buses and encourages increased ridership. Mr Keliher added that all
questions will be answered between the concept plan submittal and master plan submittal, and
that the transportation solution is a driving factor.
Member Gilmore requested a meeting before the City Council which is focused on transportation
issues be part of SunCal's presentation schedule. Mr. Keliher affirmed her request. Member
Gilmore further discussed that the two plans are not Measure A compliant, and asked what
SunCal's plan was if the citizens were to reject their proposals. Mr Keliher responded by saying
that they have no magic Measure A plan that could be financed, and there is no third alternative,
they would have to start over. Member Gilmore appreciated his honesty on the matter.
Member Matarrese addressed the transportation issue regarding commercial traffic - truck
routes, etc., and asked whether there was going to be a recommendation from the Transportation
Commission. Ms. Potter explained that the plan is to route the Development Concept to all the
boards and commissions for review and comment. Member Gilmore requested that the school
year commute traffic also be addressed.
Member Matarrese requested to see a commercial and industrial component of the plan, to be
examined with the same depth, what might be envisioned, and what are some of the plans to
bring the commercial and businesses in. He further discussed that Alameda does not have a
large commercial tax base. Economically, the tax burden is spread and residential tax payers are
shouldering the main load and maybe are at capacity. He would like to know the best mix of
commercial and how we might attract commercial business.
Vice Chair Tam discussed the importance of their role (as the ARRA Board) for the long-term in
guiding and approving a Development Plan that future councils and the community can
adaptively react to, manage, and govern under different challenges; as this plan will manifest
beyond the time that they're on this Board. She stated it is important to focus on the vision and
the core principles incorporated in the General plan, as they will all be pertinent 15 years later.
Chair Johnson thanked Pat and SunCal for doing a good job of working with the community and
being forthright with them. It's a difficult challenge and she appreciates all their efforts.
Member deHaan asked about the Fed-to-fed transfer to the VA of some of the property. Mr.
Keliher replied that SunCal has to assume the potential impacts of the VA hospital whether it
happens or not, stating that it devalues the other phases. They would work hand-in-hand with
the VA, making certain that the infrastructure and traffic impacts are taken in consideration. For
example, a VA Hospital is a 24/7 facilities hospital, it doesn't operate just during peak hours, so
when the traffic element is applied, it's another challenge. Member Matarrese requested dollar
figures attached to any reports on the this issues, stating that if the plan is for a Fed-to-Fed
transfer, then that cost should be shaved-off the $108M price for the impacts caused by the
remaining federal land.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
- RAB Comment Letter Regarding Installation Remediation Site 1
Member Matarrese wasn't able to attend last meeting, but received communication, a letter, from
Co-chair, George Humphreys, regarding the Site 1 remediation plan and Record of Decision
(ROD) which raised a lot of questions. The ARRA board took the position that they would not
accept uncharacterized landfill from Site 1, which was supposed to be scooped and removed",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,4,"after characterization. Mr. Humphreys provided a summary of his letter and discussed some of
the technical details, highlighting the deficiencies in the Navy's proposed plan to remediate Site
1.
Mr. Humphreys explained that his letter is straightforward, stating that Site 1 has been releasing
contaminants to the bay for a number of decades and deficiencies in the site need to be remedied.
There is uncharacterized industrial-type waste that could be released in event of earthquakes,
shoreline erosion, inundation by global warming, and by burrowing animals. The City asked for
trenching, with the stated objectives to verify there weren't any intact drums. The trenching
report showed that, of the 11 trenches the Navy identified, seven of them showed levels of
radioactive contamination. It was concluded that the radium contamination is widespread and
scattered. He said a letter was sent from the Navy to the environmental agencies proposing to
move portions of Site I to Site 32, to shrink site 1, because they had found radioactive waste
deeper. He also described photos of liquefaction and sand boils during the Loma Prieta
earthquake, which he explained was a mechanism of how contaminated waste could be released
in the future, if left in place.
Member Matarrese reiterated that we have expertise on this board and commended the RAB for
taking a vote, making a stand and bringing these issues to light. He had two key concerns; first
that the material found was not ordinary household waste, rather, it is industrial waste plus
radioactive, which appears to be pervasive. It seems the Navy glossed over this in their proposed
plan. Secondly, Member Matarrese commented that it was disturbing that the plan was to
excavate some of the radioactive material and just bury it on another part of Alameda Point. He
requested the Board get a technical recommendation corroborating this report so that the ARRA
can take a position with the Navy and the regulators that what is proposed is not acceptable.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, said that staff would have something by the next
ARRA meeting.
Debbie Potter, in response to Member Matarrese's concern about the waste being relocated,
clarified the process. She explained that, at the request of the City, additional trenching was
done which identified more radioactive materials than anticipated. The Navy conducted a time-
critical removal of hot spots at Site 1, and proposed to move some of the remaining fill to Site
32. The plan was to grow Site 32, continue to test and modify boundaries so that Site 1
boundaries no longer included radioactive material. All this would trigger a brand new public
process for comment, new proposed plans, and provide input on how it should be remediated.
Member Matarrese viewed the relocation plan as a stall tactic and stated that the Navy should be
forced to remove the waste to a secure facility. Ms. Potter stated that the Navy will remove all
radioactive waste. Member Matarrese questioned why, if it were safe, does it have to be moved
and buried. Ms. Potter explained that it was her understanding that they are moving it in order to
excavate along the shoreline to address seismic issues. Dale Smith, RAB member, added that the
materials being moved were hazardous, but not radioactive. Chair Johnson stated that she
generally doesn't like the idea of moving the waste to another site, even if it's not contaminated.
Mr. Humphreys added that a key point is that there was no sampling of the soil inside that cell
area, which would determine if there were any non-radioactive materials (i.e., PCBs, heavy
metals, etc.).
The Board requested that Peter Russell, Alameda Point's environmental consultant, provide a
technical analysis of the materials from the RAB regarding Site 1, a written report of highlights
after every RAB meeting, and his analysis on Navy documents he's reviewed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,5,"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
Vice Chair Tam informed the other Members that Michael Park from the Alameda Theater
would like to schedule a re-shoot of the Council Members for his film that previews movies,
because of construction noise in the background.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Aluma Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.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,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
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The meeting convened at 9:43 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 the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to Agreement with Russell
Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term
for 12 Months and Adding $147,500 to the Budget.
2-B. Approve a One-year Lease with Two One-Year Options with Makani Power for a Portion
of Hangar 12.
Member deHaan motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member
Matarrese, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
This portion of the meeting is a continuation of the Regular ARRA Meeting of 11/5, which
was recessed by Chair Johnson. On 11/5, all Board members agreed that Item 3-A
(SunCal's Development Concept) and the balance of the 11/5 agenda be continued at the
Special ARRA Meeting scheduled on November 18, 2008.
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept
(Continued from the November 5, 2008 Regular Meeting)
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an overview
regarding the purpose of presenting SunCal's Development Concept, which was to solicit
feedback and comments from the ARRA to move forward with the draft Master Plan, which is
due Dec. 19th
Chair Johnson called the public speakers first. Michael Krueger reiterated a point that if any
board member cannot support the plan for whatever reason, now is the appropriate time to
discuss and raise objections, and what changes need to be made. Arthur Lipow discussed his
concerns about the impact of the bankruptcies of SunCal Companies to the Alameda Point
project. Susan Decker discussed her continued support of the Plan.
The Board reminded the public that the list of questions from the last meeting on Nov. 5th has
been summarized and will be addressed this evening. Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point
Project Manager, Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers, Peter Calthorpe and Peter Tagami, of
California Capital Group, were present to answer questions.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,2,"Member Gilmore stated that a key issue revolves around the feasibility of implementation and
the traffic solutions - how to move people on and off the island. She discussed this as being a big
part of her comfort level with regard to whether the plan can be executed. She wants to see real
life examples of the solutions in place and working, and does not want Alameda to be the
experiment. Member Matarrese had two transportation-related points: how we are addressing
commute in the tube into China Town, and truck routes, how are we moving goods?
Matthew Ridgway, consultant from Fehr & Peers, addressed the transportation issues. He stated
that traffic congestion is expected to be worse, regardless of Alameda Point redevelopment, as
moving traffic to/from Alameda Point is secondary next to the traffic moving through the tube
and the 880 corridor. One of the questions was whether the option of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
was out. Mr. Ridgway responded 'no', but is reserving the right of way to bus transit alignment.
He further discussed that the project is developer funded and funding will be sought from AC
Transit and other funding sources. Another question was regarding buy-in of other stakeholders.
Mr. Ridgway explained that they are working with AC Transit for funding issues and Caltrans on
Broadway/Jackson improvements, but there is a much larger group of stake holders, and they are
not assuming things outside of Alameda's purview.
The Board had requested a matrix be created. Mr. Ridgway prepared a draft which highlights
major differences between the three plans, the APCP plan, the WRT plan, and the current SunCal
plan. One of the major differences they realized was having an onsite school, which was carried
forward to the current AP transportation strategy. A rapid bus element was not definitive in
other plans, but in the current AP transportation strategy, it is definitive to fund a rapid bus
transit system, also proposing to fund construction and operating costs for an additional BRT line
across the whole island to the Fruitvale BART station in order to increase transit use throughout
the island. A bikeshare program is being proposed; and another dramatic difference is a
progressive parking plan, which was in the APCP plan, and is carried forward to the current plan.
Shared parking, unbundling cost of residential parking, commercial fee based-parking, parking
maximums, limit number of auto trips - new elements included in the summary of the matrix
proposed to reduce auto trips.
Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese were concerned about the passive incentives of parking,
which did not have the effect that was intended, because other transportation hasn't been
provided. Member Gilmore discussed these unintended consequences and not being able to lure
business to site because there is not enough parking. Member deHaan discussed the real life
situation in Alameda, that streets upon streets are constrained because of no parking. He stated
his concern that lack of parking has not driven Alamedans to use public transportation.
Mr. Ridgway explained that possibly parking shortages weren't in tandem with a whole host of
transportation alternatives. They are proposing to implement the transportation alternatives and
provide the level of parking that would balance with those alternatives - to be effective
economically and be viable. They are trying to develop a plan that addresses all these issues.
Chair Johnson stated that if we insure other transportation alternatives were available, people
would use it.
Vice Chair Tam discussed the City's settlement with Oakland China town over the impact of the
Alameda Point project with traffic in China Town - a traffic level threshold was generated, and
the appropriate level was 1800 units. She asked Mr. Ridgway if their mitigation measures are all
to get back to that threshold level. Mr. Ridgway affirmed, stating that they are marketing the
plan as a green development - you live here because you only have one car or no car - the
people that have a lifestyle with fewer or no automobiles would want to live here.
Another question addressed how the water emergency transit authority will interface and will
meet the needs for maintenance and fueling facilities, and if this can be accommodated at",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,3,"Alameda Point. Mr. Ridgway explained that they have looked at the issue of relocation of the
ferry terminal to the estuary or to sea plane lagoon, but have not looked at dredging or fueling
stations; and have not reached that level of detail at this point.
Another request from the Board was to provide examples of transit alternatives. Fehr & Peers
provided a handout with information which cites several examples. Studies included comparative
analysis of transit uses among specific cities in the bay area. They are diligent in citing statistics
and research conducted nationally to reduce the number of auto trips. Regarding funds for island
wide transportation solutions, Mr. Ridgway stated that operating and capital cost are being borne
by the Alameda Point project. In response to the request to have an analysis of how many vehicle
trips this plan will create, Mr. Ridgway said that a detailed phasing plan will be included in the
Dec. 19 draft master plan.
Member Matarrese reiterated that the PDC and concept plan didn't address the issue of goods
and services moving on and off Alameda Point - truck routes, etc. for commercial and retail. He
stressed that this is a critical component that needs to be addressed.
For Peter Calthorpe addressed the next category of issues regarding adaptive reuse and light
industrial questions, and questions regarding examples of other transit oriented development.
Mr. Calthorpe gave a presentation of several examples of comparable mixed use developments,
housing over retail, live-work - in other bay area cities including Oakland, Richmond, Daly City,
San Mateo, and San Jose. Alameda Point has a unique component to offer which attracts entities
to the various mixed-use elements, that Alameda Point has the ability to have a large company
""campus"".
Vice Chair Tam asked Mr. Calthorpe to comment on creating that buffer between the different
types of uses so there are no inherent conflicts that city councils have to deal with. Mr.
Calthorpe explained that, until you get to real industrial uses, you don't have to buffer. The
beauty of that mix, the services, parks and shops are double duty - if you put a store in a
typically residential neighborhood, it won't be used - but if you put it in mixed use - it's used
throughout the day, a better viability and keeps folks out of their cars. We're all focused on
transit mode.
Member deHaan asked about adaptive reuse and light industry, and the compatibility of this? Mr.
Calthorpe stated that the parcels for commercial development are not best used as light
industrial, rather as low-rise office, and some historic reuse that can be industrial; explaining that
when you invest this much in public infrastructure, the parks and transit - you don't want to
dedicate land to light industrial - it would be underutilization for light industrial. Member
Matarrese wanted to discuss the potential reuse of hangars.
Phil Tagami, of California Capital Group, continued the presentation by discussing adaptive
reuse of the historical district structures. He discussed the tax credits and identified the protected
historic districts. His focus is on 23 of 86 buildings identified, including the flight tower and the
dive building. In total, he was asked to study 1.3M sq. ft. of space, as well as preserving and
protecting the open space that is part of that. One of the tests of being able to restore the
buildings is to give equal attention, respect to the buildings, and early involvement is key -
having the opportunity to transition and put the site into reuse NOW would protect from further
decay, create use and activity, and generate more revenue. There is a demand for certain
activities and good transitional uses; now is the opportunity to have the time to become intimate
with these buildings and begin process of next phase.
Member deHaan stated that the Navy had an inventory of the historical buildings and had desires
and needs for specific ones. He asked how far we are in that process and does it relate to the 23
of 86 buildings. Mr. Tagami stated that they are 1/3 of the way done and there is a lot of due
diligence that needs to be exercised. He further explained that the Navy hasn't fully processed",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,4,"the application for the historic district. Clear policies and a well-thought-of redevelopment effort
requires patience, due diligence, and there will be verbal sparring - a challenge and constraint
that they are ready to engage in. Mr. Tagami discussed a similar situation with the Fox Theatre
in Oakland - there were more reasons why you can't renovate the building versus why you can -
and there's a shorter time horizon here at Alameda Point, so they are willing to explore adaptive
reuse prior to transfer and are ready to take that risk.
Member Matarrese asked whether Mr. Tagami has had discussions with the City regarding
transitional use prior to transfer and whether we are pursuing this. Member Matarrese stated that
this option was a way to get us closest to the plan without losing the assets out there, as there is
copper mining, vandalism, and no funds to secure property. Mr. Tagami said that he
has
expressed this desire and that SunCal has beginnings of communication with the City. It is an
ongoing process, but they want to mind their role, focus on due diligence and underwriting, but
said that when the time is appropriate, they would be prepared to engage in that dialogue.
Member Matarrese asked if the appropriate time is now and if they are prepared to engage in that
dialogue now. Member Matarrese expressed to the Board that they consider giving direction to
move this issue as a priority. Vice Chair Tam discussed that the heavy capital makes the council
and the board reluctant to make investments for property we don't own. Mr. Tagami explained
that they often go at risk and are not asking the city to go at risk. They evaluate current
increment expense, have a good track record of delivering value, all of which requires a team
approach. They will expend the time, energy and money. Chair Johnson asked if DSD wants to
move forward with interim adaptive reuse.
Debbie Potter explained that the key components to the partnership and business deal is the
leasing program and at what point to transition that leasing program. These discussions are
underway, and staff is interested in understanding what SunCal and Phil Tagami are proposing.
Taking over the leasing program and expanding that program, renovating and identifying what
uses can be derived from those if renovated. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, added
that there was also discussion of starting with restoring one building at a time.
Chair Johnson stated that there are lots of benefits to adaptive reuse prior to transfer and that we
should move forward. Member Gilmore asked how many of the 23 buildings are currently under
lease, to which Ms. Potter replied that most are not, because they are in poor condition. Member
Gilmore discussed working something out with Suncal and Mr. Tagami for taking over historic
properties that are not under lease, to rehab and get them for productive use, and the sooner the
better. Ms. Potter explained that we should continue the analysis, what they can expect for a
revenue stream, and how willing are they to go at risk for buildings we don't own. Mr. Tagami
explained that all properties need time on task; they need to take stock of the buildings, introduce
them back on marketplace. It will take lots of work, and there will be obstacles and tears shed,
but they are up for the challenge and there is no excuse not to engage.
Mr. Keliher wanted to make it clear that SunCal has not engaged staff in any kind of detail about
this particular issue, in response to Chair Johnson's request that SunCal communicate with staff
on more regular basis staff so they can have a better understanding of possibilities, and they are
not caught by surprise. Ms. Potter stated that she didn't intend to give that impression, and that
the issue just hasn't been discussed in great detail. She explained that SunCal and Tagami have
to do their deal before they can come to the City with a proposal. The Board and staff were all in
agreement that there are advantages to moving forward with rehabilitation on the structures that
can be saved, and to make it a priority to move forward on discussions and do it as quickly as
possible.
Member Matarrese proposed that the ARRA direct staff to get into discussions with
SunCal and Phil Tagami tomorrow and bring an update back on what the discussions have
been like and what the choke points are; and this issue can be discussed as a separate
activity that runs parallel to the development. All Boardmembers agreed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,5,"Vice Chair Tam expressed that the key to a successful project is flexibility in reacting to the
changing economic conditions. In the next decade there is some expectation that the sustained
downturn in economy will require job creation, and looking at the potential for self sustaining for
energy level for the entire island, maybe there are some partnerships with AP&T, such as a solar
farm, or other type of renewable energy source. Vice Chair Tam supports the plan, as it reflects
and captures sentiment that we've been hearing throughout the community and public
workshops. Chair Johnson stated that there needs to be discussion about the phasing of public
amenities at some other appropriate point.
FM - reiterate some comments from last time including that the plan needs work on
environmental issues such as the working waterfront, which showers noise upwind. He
expressed that it's an odd place to put a neighborhood. He also mentioned not wanting to see
plans that have sidewalk dining because it's freezing cold near the waterfront - and no water
play in park. He cited that there are plenty of lessons in town to learn from, discussing the Bay
Street, Emeryville situation where there is residential over retail and the problems that come
from that type of development. Member Matarrese stated examples are all around that we should
consider, and would like the same level of detail in the final plan that has been given to
residential, given to commercial and light industrial.
Member dehaan asked SunCal about a survey that they were conducting with Alameda residents.
Mr. Keliher clarified that the survey is preliminary and is sponsored by SunCal and not the City.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative.
- Highlights of October 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. (Continued from the November
5, 2008 Regular Meeting)
Member Matarrese provided a brief presentation. He discussed highlights from the ARRA
meeting of Sept. 10th The BCT gave an update and of the fiscal year and their activities, and
there were comments on the transfer of FOST for site IR 15.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-12-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The meeting convened at 11:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
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 Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Petris Air Work Industries, Inc. dba
Alameda Aerospace at Alameda Point.
This item was pulled from the agenda and not addressed. It was continued to the January
7, 2009 regular ARRA meeting. (This item was subsequently submitted as an off-agenda).
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve the Community Reuse Plan Amendment and Legally Binding Agreement for the
Homeless Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel
This item was continued to a Special Joint Meeting of the ARRA and Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners on February 4, 2009.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of November 6 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the 11/6 RAB meeting and did not have a report. He was
attending a Council meeting on 11/6.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-12-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-12-02,2,"7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:19 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-12-02.pdf
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,2009-02-03,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The meeting convened at 12:10 a.m. (on 2/4/09) with Chair Johnson
2-B
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 Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, and the Special
CIC Meeting held on January 6, 2009. (City Clerk) [CIC].
2-B. Recommendation to authorize the use of $350,000 of Tax Exempt Bond Funds from the
Merged Area Bond (Funds 201.11 and 201.15) and appropriate the funds for use for the
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Emergency Water Repairs and Electrical Upgrades
at Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue; and authorize FISC Lease Revenue for additional
annual support of the Façade Grant Program. (Development Services) [CIC and ARRA]
Item 2-B was pulled for discussion. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member
Matarrese and seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes:
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.
Discussion of Item 2-B: Leslie Liittle, Development Services Director, summarized the project
and asked the Board for consideration so that the project can get underway for construction in
the October timeframe. The request is essentially an appropriation of $800,000 that staff
expects there will be a trade of some funds between the FISC and the CIC. The tax exempt
bonds will go into the FISC water project as a Public Works project and the FISC lease
revenues will come back to the CIC to be used outside of redevelopment project areas and
does not have the same restrictions as redevelopment funds.
Rob Ratto, PSBA Executive Director, discussed the current improvement program on Park
Street and urged the CIC/Board to approve the money for the undergrounding, the façade grant,
and the FISC property.
Approval of Item 2-B was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Vice-Chair
deHaan, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Recommendation to consider an amendment to the Lease Agreement of 2315
Central Avenue between the CIC of the City of Alameda, Lessor, and Alameda Wine
Company, LLC, Tenant. (Development Services) [CIC]",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-02-03,2,"Ms. Little gave a brief overview of Alameda Wine Company's request to amend their lease to
change their hours of operation. Staff is recommending no change to their lease at this time.
The tenant addressed the CIC explaining her request is due to financial reasons, stating that the
hours of 11:00 a.m.- - 4:00 p.m. are the least profitable for her business.
Member Matarrese motioned to follow staff's recommendation to keep the status quo and
defer any change to the Alameda Wine Company lease until such time that there is the
eventuality and risk of the business closing. Only at that time should this item be
brought back to the CIC. Member Gilmore seconded the motion and it was passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes: 3 Noes: 1 (Vice-Chair deHaan) Abstentions: 1. (Member
Tam)
3-B. Recommendation to approve a Five Year Lease and Repayment Plan/Write-off with
AC Hornet Foundation. (Development Services) [ARRA]
Ms. Little and Nanette Mocanu, Finance & Administration Division Manager, summarized the
Hornet's' repayment plan to alleviate their debt.
The Board gave direction to staff to bring this item back after revisions to the repayment plan to
include that the Hornet provide: a new business plan, credible financial reports, evidence of
creditors, and address the issue of the benefit to the ARRA of moving the Hornet for profitable
use of Pier 3. The Board also requested that a representative from the Hornet attend the
meeting when this item is brought back before the ARRA.
3-C. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Contract with Harris &
Associates for On-Call Services for Review of Land Development Entitlement
Applications for Redevelopment of Alameda Point. (Development Services) [ARRA]
This item was continued to the next Regular ARRA meeting on March 4, 2009.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of January 8th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese requested the Board review the handouts regarding OU-5 and OU-2B
technical details. The next RAB meeting is on Thursday, 2/5.
7.
ADJOURNMENT - ARRA, CIC
Meeting was adjourned at 1:22 a.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-03-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING of the
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC)
Wednesday March 4, 2009
The meeting convened at 10:30 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Torrey and Chair Johnson
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Accept Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Held Tuesday, January 6, 2009.
2-B. Accept Housing Authority Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008. The
Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of
Commissioners accept the audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008.
2-C. Authorize Submission of Application for Replacement Vouchers for Esperanza
Residents.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Commissioner Matarrese and
seconded by Commissioner Torrey and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 6
Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Hold a Public Hearing to Approve an Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and Fleet
Industrial Supply Center; Approving an Amendment to the 1996 Naval Air
Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan for the Main Street Neighborhoods
Subarea; and Approving a Legally Binding Agreement for a Homeless
Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel (LBA); and Approve a Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners Resolution Approving a LBA and Related
Memorandum of Understanding.
Elizabeth Cook, Housing Development Manager, gave a presentation which was an
overview of the North Housing Parcel project.
Liz Varela, Executive Director, Building Futures for Women and Children (BFWC),
stated that they are excited about the project, as it's a great opportunity for their clients
to make change in a safe, stable housing, with support. Doug Biggs, Executive
Director, Alameda Point Collaborative, commented on a few points, stating that the
process has resulted in a really strong plan, and that all partners came together to
create a solid program which draws on the strengths of each provider, the Housing",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-03-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-03-04,2,"Authority (HA) and BWFC. He's excited that this plan will permanently end
homelessness. He reminded the board that the Homeless Needs Assessment was
done a year ago, March 2008, and today, the needs for the homeless is even greater.
He addressed a couple of issues discussed in the presentation, including the site plan.
He commented that the drawing is only a small portion of entire site, and that the
general plan principles are met: housing is closer to the Tinker Ave. transit corridor,
which makes for easy access to transportation and schools.
Regarding the
environmental clean up, Mr. Biggs stated that they are constrained by the ROD (Record
of Decision), which limits the Navy's culpability. He discussed that in the worse case to
comply with ROD, the HA came up with a plan built into the funding mix, as well as a
plan which is part of the service plan to set aside money for insurance. He assured the
Board that the project was made to be as risk-averse as much as possible
Member Matarrese stated a few modifications to the recommendation, including making
sure the eight acres stay contiguous, and that the Miracle League is specified within the
eight acres; that language is worked into the LBA that addresses if the remediation
insurance is cross prohibitive, we don't have to take title. Chair Johnson added the
provision that outside counsel, or counsel, should make any changes necessary to
ensure additional safeguards. Donna Mooney, ARRA General Counsel, summarized
that this is an ARRA motion approving the resolution (the addendum to final EIR),
amending the Community Reuse Plan, and approving the LBA as modified. The
motion was made by Chair Johnson, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed
by the following voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
As the HABOC, the recommendation was to approve the resolution approving the MOU
between the Housing Authority, Alameda Point Collaborative, and Building Futures for
Women and Children; and approving the LBA as modified. The motion was made by
Commissioner Torrey, seconded by Commissioner Matarrese, and passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
4.
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.)
None.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
6.
ADJOURNMENT - ARRA, HABOC
Meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
AlumaElidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-03-04.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,2009-05-19,1,"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,2009-06-03,1,"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,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,2009-09-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 2, 2009- 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 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 Executive Director discussed price and terms regarding Alameda Point. No action was
taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30
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
September 2, 2009",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-09-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-10-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:12 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 September 2, 2009.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 15, 2009.
2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Three-Year Sublease Renewal for Piedmont
Youth Soccer Club at Alameda Point.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners in
Building 29 at Alameda Point Without a Waiver in Rent and a Right of First Offer for
Building 29 Only.
2-E. Amend the Contract and Project Budget for the Fire at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center by
Adding $500,000.
2-F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sales Agreement, and Approve Disposing of
Personal Property at Alameda Point - Proposed Sale of Ship Waste Off-Loading Barge.
Item 2-D was pulled by staff and continued to the November meeting. Vice Chair deHaan
pulled Items 2-C and 2-E for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar (Items 2-
A, 2-B and 2-F) was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
Discussion on Item 2-C:
Leslie Little, Economic Development Director, summarized the staff report. There were several
speakers. The speakers who were against the item were concerned about the soccer field and
Alameda resources being ceded to another city. They questioned what their fees pay for and
the availability of the fields to Alameda's soccer teams.
Chair Johnson explained that the Jack London Youth Soccer League created and manages the
pool of fields to which all the different soccer clubs can schedule games. The fields are not
exclusive and are open to all the communities at all times. The annual maintenance of the field
at Alameda Point is $40,000. Piedmont soccer does the maintenance, upkeep, take on that
responsibility, and Alameda clubs still have use of all the soccer fields.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-10-07,2,"Member deHaan was concerned that there would be a shortage of fields or available game-play
on the field for Alameda clubs. Dale Lillard, Park and Rec Director, explained that there has not
been a shortage of fields, and any shortage experienced was only due to the water rationing
mandated by EBMUD to help with the drought, not by any scheduling conflicts.
Member Matarrese clarified that this particular field at Alameda Point is not a City-owned field -
it still belongs to the Navy and it is not being ceded to another city, it is being leased. He further
explained that it is not any different than when the buildings are leased at Alameda point -
leasing is not restricted to Alameda only - and if that land was not leased to the Piedmont
soccer club, and because Alameda's Parks and Rec department didn't have the funds to
maintain the field, it would be a weed field.
There was further discussion from the representatives of the Jack London Youth Soccer Sports
League, Alameda Soccer Club, and the Piedmont Soccer Club. They answered questions
posed by the speakers and the Board, and further expressed their continued support and
maintenance of the Alameda Point field for the benefit of all the youth soccer clubs.
Item 2-C was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member Tam
and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
Discussion on Item 2-E:
Leslie Little discussed staff's request to augment the existing budget for removal of fire debris of
Building 6 by $500,000. She summarized that in late March, Building 6 caught fire. The initial
debris removal was done, but asbestos and other contaminated building materials were found,
and the remaining concrete tower structures were unstable. We are eligible for a $200,000
grant from DTSC to offset the $500,000.
Vice Chair deHaan asked what the overall cost would be when complete; and if we were going
to hold Catellus responsible to pay back the cost. Ms. Little stated the amount to be
approximately $2 million by completion. She further explained that under their existing DDA,
Catellus is responsible for the demolition. There has been discussion between Catellus and the
City regarding what their actual obligation for cost is beyond just the regular demolition, which
will not be resolved until there is another amendment to their DDA.
Ms. Little also stated that the City Attorney's office has looked into whether we could put a lien
on the property so that it couldn't transfer without this obligation. There is no way around it,
however, as the language of the DDA specifies that we have to deliver the property to them
clear of liens or encumbrances.
Member Matarrese asked how quickly, after the $500,000 is allocated, will the demolition be
completed. Ms. Little stated that it would be done immediately, and that the daily cost of
security will cease also. Member Matarrese stated that the Catellus DA clearly says that
Catellus is responsible for demolishing this building. Since we demolished it for them, we need
to assign this cost to them. Whatever the vehicle is we need to present it to Catellus.
Member Gilmore asked what the modification to the ARRA budget is and if there are things we
are not going to be able to do because of this $500,000 modification. Ms. Little explained that
there is no line item where these funds could be taken from, so staff proposed this would come
back to the ARRA in a budget adjustment. The funds would come out of the ARRA's cash
balance, rather than what is usually referred to as a fund balance.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-10-07,3,"Member Matarrese motioned to approve the allocation of the $500,000 to complete the
demolition, and added that the entire cost of the demolition be assigned to Catellus.
Member Gilmore seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes:
Ayes: 5, Noes: o, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of September 3rd Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese said that the highlight of the meeting was an update and discussion on Site
1, the far northwest end of the wildlife refuge and lower part of Northwest Territories. The Navy
presentation refreshed the RAB on boundaries and milestones, the Navy's containment
preference to use an engineered four-foot soil cover, and their path forward which included a
timeline to Record of Decision (ROD) and remedial action to begin in December of 2010. The
RAB's discussion mostly challenged the assessment of that contamination - the fact that the
sample site data was old and inadequate. Member Matarrese stated that discussions at the
meetings have been heated and required a facilitator. There are people knowledgeable enough
to ask very technical questions and the bottom line is that no one is satisfied with the Navy's
proposal to cap it with four feet of soil. Member Matarrese was not able to attend the October 1
RAB meeting. The next meeting is Nov. 5.
Member Tam asked what the Navy plans to do with the feedback and their plans to go forward
with capping, even to our objection. Member Matarrese explained that the Navy was supposed
to have a final ROD by September 17th, but does not know if it has been published. The Navy is
also supposed to go through the pre-design work this December of whatever solution there
might be. ARRA's letter to the Navy stating the objection to the soil capping was also copied to
the Congressional delegation, which may garner a little more attention to slow this process
down and get a different resolution. Member Matarrese also complimented the ARRA's
environmental consultant, Dr. Peter Russell, for the informative summaries of the RAB meetings
which he provides to the ARRA.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-11-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:03 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 October 7, , 2009.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, 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 October 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the Oct. 1 meeting, but received a comprehensive listing
(Alameda Point Site/Area Description) of Alameda Point IR Sites by name, by number, historic
use, current contamination status and future reuse. He asked that this list be distributed to
other boardmembers. The next RAB meeting is tomorrow, 11/5.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-11-04.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,2010-01-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 12:54 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 December 2, 2009.
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 December 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the December 7 RAB meeting, including that he
received a preliminary report from Derek Robinson of the Navy stating that the large object
in
the Sea Plane Lagoon is a concrete block with pier material, not hazardous waste. Member
Matarrese requested that the ARRA write a letter to the Navy to remove the concrete block.
Member deHaan asked if radiation was found on that piece. Member Matarrese replied that it is
unknown and a primary reason why it should be removed. Member Matarrese also discussed
that the Navy wants to leave the radium contaminated sewer line in place under building 400,
stating that removing it would cause the structure to be unsound. Member Matarrese, along
with RAB members insist that the sewer line has to be removed. Another important point
discussed was that the University of Florida and Purdue University received a large DOD grant
to conduct remediation development studies; this grant represents several hundreds of
thousands of dollars and put Alameda Point remediation on the map.
Chair Johnson agreed that the ARRA send a letter to the Navy regarding the two key items:
concrete block removal, and contaminated sewer line removal.
Vice Chair deHaan discussed looking at the option of filling the area in order to bring back the
shoreline. Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese agreed, stating that if the Seaplane Lagoon is
eventually going to be a Marina, and boating activities will be taking place there, it needs to be
cleared out.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
02-03-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-01-06,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese discussed the visit to El Toro and Hamilton bases, particularly that the City
of Irvine established a local development corporation to develop the Great Park. Member
Matarrese would like to put an item on a future ARRA agenda to evaluate that particular option
to see if it has utility for the ARRA or successor to the ARRA. He stated that Hamilton is farther
along than most other bases - there are lots of houses; 10 hangars in use, eight of which have
been rehabbed for public and private, with two hangars remaining in the Coast Guard. Member
Matarrese recommends looking for potential military use for the hangars at Alameda Point. He
stated that the most important and striking feature of Hamilton was that they were taking the
runways and returning them to wetlands. Member Matarrese discussed that a wetlands option
for the west end of Alameda Point might be a superior option to bolster the shoreline with an
engineering solution. The wetlands are a carbon sink, and there may be future carbon credits; it
filters runoff, provide better habitat for the environment and is a superior buffer to storm or wave
action because it doesn't require maintenance.
Vice Chair deHaan discussed that some of the dredging from the Port of Oakland was used for
establishing that wetlands. Member Matarrese added that levies were built as well. Vice Chair
deHaan stated that getting ""tipping fees' is extremely important to jumpstart this type of
operation.
Chair Johnson liked the idea of wetland restoration. Member Matarrese reiterated that the
ARRA remain insistent that the Navy scoop and remove Sites 1 and 2.
Member Matarrese stated that there was concern expressed by two members of the RAB (one
representative from the EPA and one from the Audubon Society) of rumors that the Bay Trail
was in jeopardy, either from the Wildlife or the VA. Member Matarrese would like to find the
source to the rumor to see if it has any merit.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.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,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,2010-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese 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 March 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 March 1 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
05-06-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-04-06,2,"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/2010-04-06.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,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,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,2010-10-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:10 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 September 1, 2010.
2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Jim Bustos Plumbing, Inc., Building
612, at Alameda Point.
2-C. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with Russell
Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term
for 12 Months and Adding $140,000 to the Budget.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for NRC Environmental Services, Inc.
Building 616 and Yard D-13, at Alameda Point.
Vice Chair deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of September 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese was not able to attend the Sept. 2 meeting but received materials regarding
remediation activity in progress with a new technology, and a brief report on the University of
Florida study of the remediation technique.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
6-A. Presentation on ""Going Forward"" Community Forums for Alameda Point",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-10-06,2,"The Planning Services Manager gave an oral presentation on the schedule of the Alameda
Point Community Forums, an initial eight month public outreach effort of the first phase of
planning, which would end in June 2011 and restart the environmental review process. The
Planning Services Manager explained that while the City of Alameda is doing a CEQA
document EIR, the Navy will be doing a NEPA document. The Navy process won't start until
there is a project description or general description of the City's plan. The goal is eight months.
The eight-month schedule starts with a series of community outreach efforts, including
community workshops and internet outreach. The tentative schedule of the first three meetings
is: November 9 at the Grand Pavilion, November 18 at Mastick, and December 8 in west
Alameda. These workshops and key components of each meeting will be consistent from
meeting to meeting.
The Planning Services Manager summarized the six key areas as noted in the staff report: 1)
Community Facilities, 2) Land Use Mix, 3) Streets, Parks, and Open Space, 4) Transportation
Access, 5) Architectural Character and Building Types, and 6) Historic Character and Adaptive
Reuse.
There are plans for a Tenant Forum in the spring focused on economic development strategy, a
Developer and Business Forum, and discussions with each of the Boards and Commissions. A
summary will be presented to the ARRA Board in March 2011, and a project description in June
2011.
Member Gilmore requested an overview of where Alameda and the Bay Area stand in the
commercial and industrial real estate market. The Interim City Manager discussed the
application of a citywide real estate management policy which will include the information
Member Gilmore requested about comparable leases.
Member Tam requested an evaluation of internal competition, i.e., Marina Village VS. Alameda
Point.
Member Matarrese discussed the commercialization and industrialization approach to
development at Alameda Point, stating that the markets already out there are not the typical
suburban business park, not the type of businesses that would go into Marina Village, i.e., NRC
and supporting industries, Spirits Alley, the maritime industry. Member Matarrese also
discussed the jobs housing, and that job creation should drive it, stating that Alameda Point will
never be the rest of Alameda and probably shouldn't be, because it is industrial. Alameda Point
should reflect what it was and people will look at it in a different way.
Vice Chair deHaan concurred with Member Matarrese, stating that Alameda Point has a
different architectural design and that the development should maximize the unique venue out
there, and that folks should not get caught up in that it has to look like the rest of Alameda.
Member Gilmore recommended evaluating and targeting the types of businesses and industries
that would value the asset of Alameda's own electric utility.
Member Tam inquired a status report on communications with the Navy and if they were aware
of the ""Going Forward"" plan, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services
responded in the affirmative, stating that staff met with the Navy last week. The Navy produced
conveyance objectives and stated that they want to help facilitate conveyance and interim
economic development. The Interim City Manager stated that she will meet with the Navy's top
management every 90 days for a status update.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-10-06,3,"Member Tam inquired if there was opportunity for Alameda to get funding for the EIR process.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that
staff has discussed funding possibilities with the Navy. There are some technical issues as the
Navy has a contract for their NEPA process, and the City has a CEQA contract, but it may be
possible to combine the processes so that it is cost efficient.
Member Tam inquired if there are synergies between the sister federal agencies (Lawrence
Berkeley Lab is with the Dept. of Energy, and the Veterans Administration has close ties with
Navy). The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that, regarding the VA, the
Navy understands that there has to be coordination to the extent that City staff can work with
the VA to leverage their infrastructure and develop that relationship, not just in terms of
regulatory process, but also with actual physical improvements and infrastructure. With regards
to the Lawrence Berkeley Lab's requests for proposals for land to host their second campus, the
City is prepared to submit a proposal in coordination with the Navy.
The Interim City Manager added that the City is prepared to respond to the Lawrence Berkeley
Lab RFP process with a very competitive proposal. There are opportunities to have strategic
alliances as a result of the DOE and the Navy that makes Alameda Point uniquely competitive.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff will be providing the Board
with updates at the monthly ARRA meetings.
Vice Chair deHaan inquired if the Navy is willing to do phased conveyance. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that the Navy is exploring the boundaries, the pros
and cons of phased conveyance, and that the Navy is open and listening to ideas.
There was discussion from the Board about the management of the utilities at Alameda Point
and whether there was a formal decision made about it. The Assistant General Counsel -
ARRA stated that there has never been a plan that the City would operate any of the utilities at
Alameda Point other than the electric utility.
Member Matarrese requested that the facts of this matter be brought back to the Board.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese attended the liaison committee meeting between AC Transit and the City
and discussed the series of cuts, including reduction of services for Lines O, Line 51A, and Line
21, and the discontinuation of Line 851. He was most concerned about Line 31 (the only bus
service to the Alameda Point Collaborative and to west of Main St) which will be discontinued on
weekends. Member Matarrese requested that the City insist that Line 31 be continued on
weekends.
There was discussion by the Board of SunCal's involvement in the political arena.
Boardmembers expressed their dissatisfaction and displeasure, denouncing SunCal's efforts,
stating that the personal attacks on staff members and elected officials to influence any political
debate or election should not be tolerated.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-10-06,4,"9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.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,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,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,2011-02-02,1,"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/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,2,"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/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,3,"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/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,4,"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/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,5,"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/2011-02-02.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,2011-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-032) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 2, 2011, Minutes of the
Special Joint City Council/ARRA/Community Improvement Meetings held on March 15, 2011.
(*11-033) Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council and BSA Sea Scouts -
Ancient Mariner Regatta.
(*11-034) Approve the Proposed Sale of Two Grove Cranes to NRC Environmental Services.
(*11-035) Authorize the ARRA Port Manager, NRC Environmental Services, to Replace the Pier
2 Fendering System in an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000.
(*11-036) Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with Scott Electric for Pier 3
Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a Contract Not to Exceed $238,266 Using Remaining
ARRA Bond Funds.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
Chair Gilmore moved Item 7-A to be the first item discussed under the Regular Agenda
Items.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-037) Alameda Point Commercial Market Assessment.
The Deputy City Manager gave a presentation focusing on Alameda and East Bay market
conditions and the implications for Alameda Point and its redevelopment, strictly to provide a
market overview and not a development strategy, to determine the state of the market as it
exists today.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-04-06,2,"John McManus, senior director of Cushman & Wakefield was available to answer questions.
Chair Gilmore expressed concern that implementing a long term lease strategy that is niche-
focused will take as long as implementing a development plan.
Mr. McManus replied that a reuse strategy is different than a build-to-suit strategy, stating that it
is important that it is clearly defined what is available. Advised a strategy to show potential
office buildings with a potential floor plan and be able to explain to potential tenants that all risks
have been removed and understand what can be delivered.
Chair Gilmore clarified that in order to effectively market Alameda Point, money needs to be
spent upfront to determine concept buildings or concept plans apart from what the master plan
ends up being. Mr. McManus agreed with Chair Gilmore, stating that there needs to be a clear
definition, and if it is left to the potential tenants to figure out, in an environment where there is
so much vacancy, chances are that Alameda Point will not get their attention unless it's a very
unique use with a big footprint.
Member Tam inquired about the element of competition in the marketplace, asking what kind of
recommended capital outlay is needed for Alameda Point to have a competitive edge. Mr.
McManus stated that the good competitive news is that redevelopment and enterprise zones
are not going to be competitors for Alameda Point.
Joe Ernst, SRM associates, added that there is so much obsolescence of space - there is no
longer a need for more plain office space -- and it is a function of understanding the market for
spaces and uses that cannot be developed elsewhere, and aligning with the right team to
develop it. Vice Chair Bonta inquired if there are market segments performing differently than
the market trends. Mr. Ernst replied that those segments with superior performance include life
sciences, such as the LBNL opportunity, light industrial, and R&D flex space.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the next step will involve doing
more research and return to the Board with ideas or strategies.
Chair Gilmore thanked the Deputy City Manager- Development Services and staff for the
overview.
(11-038) Review and Comment on Summary Report for the Community Planning Process for
Alameda Point.
The Planning Services Supervisor and the Deputy City Manager- - Development Services gave a
presentation on the Community Planning Process.
Speakers: Elizabeth Krase Greene, Adam Gillitt, Nancy Gordon, Gretchen Lipow, Helen Sause,
Carol Gottstein, Susan Galleymore, Nancy Hird.
Chair Gilmore commented that she is looking forward to be able to discuss the financial
feasibility of the Alameda Point project with the public so the community can understand how
much it will cost to develop Alameda Point. In the past, since the developer was running a pro
forma, a lot of costs were not able to be shared with the public. Chair Gilmore stated that
certain costs are inescapable, no matter what is developed: infrastructure costs between $600M
- $800M.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-04-06,3,"Member Tam concurred with Chair Gilmore and added that economic underpinnings are critical
at Alameda Point. Member Tam and Chair Gilmore expressed their appreciation to staff and the
community for all their time and effort in the Community Planning Process.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-039) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative
- Highlights of March 3, 2011 RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed the San Francisco Estuary Regional
Monitoring program, a program that monitors 22 water sites in bay, and 47 sediment sites. The
RAB would like the program to take on one area of Alameda Point to monitor. The OU2A site,
adjacent to Encinal High School, was also discussed. Surface remediation was done, and final
remediation will be completed. Tomorrow's meeting (3/4) will include an update on the
Seaplane Lagoon.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-040) Update on Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Second Campus Request for
Qualifications.
The Deputy City Manager-Development Services gave a presentation on the LBNL Campus
opportunity.
Representatives from the development teams introduced themselves to the Council: Joe Ernst,
SRM; Mary Pampuch, Lankford & Associates, Inc.
Speakers: Robert Todd
Member Tam inquired whether any of the 21 applicants that had responded have the same type
of potential development partner in RFQ process, in particular inquired if Alameda's partners are
unique to Alameda.
The Deputy City Manager-Development Services responded that to her knowledge, the other
sites are already owned by developers or have already teamed with private property owners;
the other applicants did not go through an RFQ process for a developer like Alameda, and none
of the other teams are teamed with the other sites.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired when the announcement of the short list will be made and how short
is the short list. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services replied that the call can come
through at any time now and that three on the short list is reasonable. Member Tam inquired if
there was any value to engaging legislators. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services
stated that letters have been sent to Stark and Swanson, but recommends waiting until the short
list comes out before Alameda starts lobbying.
Chair Gilmore thanked staff for the update and thanked the representatives from the
development teams for attending and introducing themselves to the Board.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-04-06,4,"8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Vice Chair Bonta presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chair Bonta, Members deHaan, Johnson, and Tam
and Chair -4.
(Note: Member Johnson arrived at 7:07 p.m.)
Absent:
Mayor Gilmore - 1
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-048) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of April 6, 2011 and the Special
ARRA Meeting of May 17, 2011.
(*11-049) Approve a No-Cost, Two-Year Lease Agreement with Friends of Alameda Theater,
Inc. for a Portion of Building 91 at Alameda Point.
(*11-050) Transmittal of May 18, 2011 Webinar Presentation.
Vice Chair Bonta pulled item 3-B (Building 91) for clarification.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired why the rent for Building 19 is being waived, instead of having a
paying tenant. Nanette Mocanu, Economic Development Division Manager, explained that
Building 91 is being split between two tenants, one on a month-to-month term. The entire space
is currently being marketed, and the lease has a 90-day termination clause. The building would
be vacant otherwise.
Member Tam moved for approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Member
deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
Member Tam moved for approval of Item 3-B. Member deHaan seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-051) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative
- Highlights of April 7 and May 5, 2011 RAB Meetings.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,2,"Member deHaan reported that the RAB is starting to look at the fuel distribution system
underneath the runway, adjacent to the lagoon. He explained that since it is fuel, the
clean up might be problematic, but easier to remediate than heavy metals and PCBs as
in other sites.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-052) Alameda Point Update
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a short update. Alameda Point was
among six other sites LBNL short-listed for its second campus. Staff is working with the
development team daily to prepare high quality responses to upcoming submittals to LBNL.
The final selection process will be in November.
A two-hour developer interview was held on May 31st, which included a 30-minute presentation,
by the development team. The presentation included case studies of projects they worked on,
project delivery, and public outreach plans. Staff plans to have other informal meetings with the
development team.
A community meeting is scheduled for July 13th from 7-9:30 p.m. Staff is looking at various
suitable venues, in terms of capacity and access. There will be an extensive outreach plan,
including revamping and developing a separate website focused on LBNL, and a Facebook
page which will be managed by a marketing company - all in an effort to access different
populations that have not been accessed before. Staff and the development team will be
making presentations to different organizations throughout the city. Staff will provide a packet of
the community outreach materials to the City Council at its June 21st meeting.
Regarding the larger master planning efforts of Alameda Point, staff held its first webinar on
May 18, 2011 to impart the financial basics on how the pro forma works more generically, and
details on infrastructure costs related to the existing entitlement, which is the general plan. A
Transportation workshop was held on May 26, 2011. There was a presentation that detailed
case studies of how other communities dealt with traffic congestion issues, how they addressed
those issues and moved forward, including Santa Monica, CA and Boulder, CO, which has
similar density to Alameda. A Sustainability Workshop is scheduled on June 14th to look at
other communities to achieve sustainability and implement some sustainability concepts.
Another webinar will be scheduled in July to follow up on details of pro forma, and the approach
to get the community involved in the financial side. More developer interviews will be done.
Member deHaan inquired if the transportation study is posted online, to which the Deputy City
Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that the report will also
be transmitted to the Board. Member deHaan complimented staff on the financial webinar,
stating that he was impressed with a job well done.
Member Tam inquired what proportion of backbone infrastructure cost will be needed for the
LBNL site. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the amount is being
calculated. Phase one will not have much new infrastructure, but for build out, there will be",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,3,"more improvements needed. Staff is also working with Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) on the
calculations. AMP will be able to serve the first phase without a lot of improvements.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired what the average number of participants was for the community
engagement events and how the information is being disseminated. The Deputy City Manager -
Development Services explained that the Transportation Workshop was not well attended, as
there was a League of Women Voters event on the same night. There were fewer than 20
people at the Transportation Workshop, and approximately 50 people attended the webinar (35
people attending online with approximately 10-15 present in person). The recording of webinar
is available online, and the pdf of presentations will also be posted online.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired if the Sustainability workshops will be recorded, stating that the
community would take the opportunity to participate and view if it were available online, and that
there is value to holding the events in Chambers so that they can be broadcast and recorded.
Member deHaan agreed, stating that the community watches meetings on the City's channel
15, and although the audience is small in chambers, there are a lot of home viewers and may
reach more people. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that with the
Sustainability Workshop in particular, the element of interaction from community is needed.
Vice Chair Bonta expressed his appreciation for staff's efforts regarding the July 13th event and
inquired about other smaller events for community outreach. The Deputy City Manager -
Development Services stated that the team has a calendar of events scheduled. They have
met with the Chamber of Commerce, and plan to attend and present at several joint mixers with
the WABA, PSBA, Rotary, League of Women, Business Association newsletters, Concerts at
the Cove etc.
Member Johnson suggested giving a presentation to school board. Member Tam suggested
including the Peralta Community College District Board community to gain support of
environmental community. The Acting City Manager meets with a realtors association and
plans to bring something more formal to them. Vice Chair Bonta asked that the Hospital Board
be included in the outreach.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Tam provided a brief report on the Legislative Action day of May 18th. On the budget
scene, the delegation - Loni Hancock, Joan Buchanan, Mary Hayashi, Nancy Skinner, Bob
Wieckowski, and Mark DeSaulnier - seemed determined that they would have a budget to send
to the Governor on June 15th because this is the first time Prop. 25 has been implemented,
which stipulates that they won't get paid if the budget is not presented.
Regarding redevelopment, the league is very clear about the priorities, they understand at least
in the East Bay district, not all the legislators will be supportive, Hancock, Buchanan, Hiyashi
and Wieckowski were opposed to keeping redevelopment, as they have seen through the
Governor's discussion that there has been abuses by some agencies. Assemblymember
Swanson has seen benefits of redevelopment and understands LBNL's need for RDA funding
(several cities in his district are on the short list). An option that the league is exploring is reform
to deal with the abuses, including Senator Wright's bill, which tightens the definition of blighted
areas in redevelopment and putting caps and mechanisms to avoid some of these abuses.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,4,"Member deHaan inquired how the legislators discussed slicing out base conversion.
The
Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed a bill in circulation that carves out
military bases, a new bill from the League of Cities, and the CAL Redevelopment Agency and
Association of Defense Communities. Senator Wiggins introduced a bill on behalf of
communities with Bases, which staff will be monitoring.
The Acting City Attorney reminded the Board that this discussion couldn't continue, as it is not
on the agenda. It can be agendized on a future meeting if they want to discuss it further.
Member Tam concluded her report.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice Chair Bonta adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-09-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, September 7, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-063) Approve the Minutes of the Special ARRA Meetings of July 13, 2011 and July 19, 2011.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member deHaan seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-064) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of August 4, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan stated that Site OU-2C, a major contamination area, was discussed. The site
has been worked on in many phases. The RAB has set an alternative for Site D-6 which is $16M,
stating that the Navy wants to go with the $5.8M. The issue is still being discussed and under
evaluation.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-065) Provide Update on Status of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Process and
Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that LBNL members visited the site
and were given a guided tour and presentation. LBNL and consultants are currently
reviewing site submittals. In Sept/Oct staff will compile one final response. LBNL stated
that they will review final submittals and make a recommendation to the UC Regents in
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-09-07.pdf