body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-A
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
The meeting convened at 5:46 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Agreement with LFR, Inc. For
environmental consulting services at Alameda Point in the amount of $175,130 for a total
agreement amount of $249,000.
2-B.
Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute sublease(s) at Alameda
Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A.
Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
None.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,2,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
Chair Lee Perez noted that they did not hold a business meeting during December, although a
very nice social gathering was held. He noted that there was no discussion, and that the next
meeting would be held on January 19, 2005. He noted that they would decide how to carry out
the ARRA's wishes at that time.
Member DeHaan noted that while he was not part of the decision made at the last ARRA
meeting, he supported that decision. He was concerned that the process took much longer than
anyone could have anticipated, and that when he was Chair of EDC, he ensured that they were up
to speed on Alameda Point issues. He recalled several team members (Al Clooney and Dan
Meyers) who had passed away during this process.
Mayor Johnson noted that she and Member Daysog had been members of the BRAG as well.
Chair Perez noted that three active former BRAG members sat on the City Council, and that
hoped that their dedication would reach Sacramento and Washington, D.C. He noted that it had
been an honor to serve in this capacity, and acknowledged that change was necessary.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese recalled previous discussions to bring the redevelopment of the Point to the
mainstream consciousness of Alameda. He noted that the very light turnout at the ARRA
meetings did not meet that goal. He requested that the regular meeting time be changed to 7:30
p.m. in order to encourage more community participation. He noted that the closed session could
be held before the regular meeting.
Mayor Johnson suggested agendizing that item for the next meeting, and noted that a 7:00 start
time could be tried. A special meeting would be held on Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.
Member DeHaan requested an update on the Consultant Agreement to be placed on the next
agenda.
Chair Perez did not anticipate that there would be any further amendments to current consultant
contracts. He added that they could make an updated budget presentation at the next regular
meeting. They had anticipated some changes to the consultant contracts, and that they did not
2
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,3,"impact their contingency or any other line items contained in the ARRA-led predevelopment
budget.
8.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
8-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session: The ARRA received a briefing
from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 6:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
3
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-B
Thursday, January 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 8:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
There were no speaker slips.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3-A. Amending Resolution No. 010 establishing rules and procedures for Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority meetings by amending the starting time of regular meetings from 5:30 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m. (requested by Boardmember Matarrese)
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
Member Matarrese noted that this item is approved with the intent to increase public participation.
4.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
4-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel,
ARRA Secretary
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\1-20-05 Special.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-20.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-A
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:16 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 3, 2004.
2-B.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 18, 2004.
2-C. Resolution Supporting a Joint Local / State Effort to Speed Up Redevelopment of
California's Closed Military Bases.
Chair Johnson motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1 by Member Matarrese.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud gave monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance
process. At the January Meeting with the Navy we developed a Master Timeline with the Navy
and got an update on the status of some of the selective restoration sites. We discussed the first
phase footprint and key IR sites that are contained within the footprint and the ARRA made a
presentation at that meeting of our revised infrastructure costs for Alameda Point. We gave the
Navy an update of the status of the Trust exchange with the State Lands Commission. We let
them know that the legislation as been approved for the Trust exchange and that we had drafted a
draft exchange agreement that we had shared with State Lands Commission staff. Our legal
counsel had submitted it to their legal counsel and that we were currently awaiting comments.
Elizabeth Johnson, one of our planners at AP made a presentation to the historic advisory board
on Jan 7th where we gave them some background information on the historic district and the
actions that were underway relative to the historic district.
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,2,"On
Saturday,
Jan
22nd we had a tour with the Alameda Architectural Preservation. The group
came out and we toured around the base, specifically focusing on historic preservation issues. We
had an excellent turn out with well over 15 members attending, along with Page and Turnbull.
Two upcoming community workshops: the first one is March 3rd with the planning board; at that
one we will focus largely on land use options, a continuing dialogue of what's happening at our
first two community workshops. The next would be on Mar 23rd with the transportation
commission where we would focus more on transportation related issues obviously and
specifically on some of the discussions that we had at our last workshop for estuary crossings.
Our goal is take all of those transit options and try and funnel them down to a couple that we can
really study in depth as we move forward thru the process. So this is the continuing dialogue on
that issue with the transportation commission, again hosted with the APAC as well.
Member DeHaan asked how we are planning to get feedback from the Historic Preservation
Society on the tour and if they be part of the community workshop. Stephen Proud replied that
they were invited to participate in those meetings as an opportunity to make sure their comments
came through the workshop format and they were also invited to solicit and give us comments
independent of those workshops.
Member Matarrese requested minutes of that meeting to give us at least some indication of what
they might have said.
Stephen Proud began discussions on the ARRA led predevelopment budget: The ARRA has $3.5
million that is available to lead the predevelopment planning period. There was a slight increase on
Navy conveyance and on the land use planning side. At this point through the process we've spent
@ 45% of what we had budgeted and we' re about 12 mo. into an 18 mo. process.
Councilmember DeHaan asked if we were anticipating any contract amendments. Stephen Proud
replied that at this point, we don't expect there would be any contract amendments. We do have a
couple of contracts that have expirations date that were set for Mar 31st but we don't see
anything on the horizon that looks like it would result in one of our consultant contracts going up
in any extraordinary way in the near future.
Member DeHaan asked what the completion date is on the project. Stephen replied that this
budget was programmed to take us thru June 30th of 2005 -- an 18 month ARRA led pre
development period, from the beginning of 04 to the middle of 05.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC
There were no representatives from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there were no representatives
from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there was an APAC sub-committee meeting this evening
therefore there were no members available for an oral report.
2
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,3,"5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
RAB met on January 6, 2005. Key topics were the Seaplane Lagoon; site 17. The draft feasibility
study was presented. A timeline for implementing remediation for that site in 2006 was discussed.
This would be the actual remediation of contaminants in the Seaplane Lagoon. An update of
action on the Miller School and Woodstock Child Care Center, site 30 and the remediation
activities that went on there. New RAB member, Joan Conrad, voted in. Next meeting is February
3, 2005 at 6:30 pm.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Mataresse thanked staff for all the work done, particularly with getting community
workshops together and stated that he's very interested in the Transportation workshop on March
23rd, acknowledging that having a transportation infrastructure in place before a development
increases the value of the land because it's there and not an encumbrance. A meeting on February
18, 2005 is schedule to reactivate our liaison committee with AC Transit Propose to discuss
transportation with a BART liaison committee.
Chair Johnson suggests our liaison committee should schedule a meeting with BART, which may
need council approval. States BART is a big issue for Alameda.
Stephen Proud stated that the logistics had not been worked out yet, but mentioned that it would
be hosted as a joint workshop with either one of the boards or commissions and the APAC but
that the 4th workshop would be a more general public forum. There was nothing formal discussed
for a 5th workshop. Member DeHaan would like to see the Economic Development Commission
host the 5th meeting. Chair Johnson stated that discussions regarding EDC hosting had already
been done. Chair Johnson asked if there was a public outreach planned. Prior ones very well
attended. Great benefit that these workshops are broadcasted live.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 7:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
3
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRAminutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
5-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 5, 2005.
2-B.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 20, 2005.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Stephen Proud gave a monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance
process. He stated that on February 16th, a proposal was made to the Navy for the acquisition of
Alameda Point. Discussions with the Navy included a presentation about conveyance strategy
and approach for moving Alameda Point forward. The proposal to the Navy was very well
received and they expressed appreciation for the proposal. A series of follow-up meetings have
been scheduled to discuss environmental and economic issues, and parcel identification suitable
for transfer and phasing.
Next land planning workshop is scheduled for March 3rd This workshop has been broken up into
two pieces: the March 3rd meeting is co-hosted by the planning board and APAC and will focus
on land use alternatives that have been developed over the first series of public workshops. The
second part of this workshop will be a separate meeting on the March 23rd with the
Transportation Commission, which will focus on transportation alternatives. The goal is to come
back to the ARRA in April with a full briefing on the 2 workshops. A good solid attendance is
expected as was experienced in the past. Andrew Thomas from the planning department
continued to discuss benefits of having the workshops broken into two separate meetings. He
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,2,"stated the community expressed a desire to receive information in smaller quantities rather than
two much, too fast.
Mr. Thomas discussed estuary crossing and long term planning, not only for Alameda Point but
for the entire City of Alameda and that we will be presenting to the public the various
transportation possibilities: light rail connections to the Fruitvale BART along the regional
outline alignment to the aerial tram from the west end to the west Oakland BART and a number
of different options.
Chair Johnson mentioned the interagency liaison committee with AC Transit and talked about
transportation solutions. She would like to look at a system that uses the same tracks that are
currently in place in Alameda. She stated that this would dramatically cut down the costs of that
kind of transportation solution.
Andrew Thomas agreed and explained the difference between heavy gauge and light gauge rail.
The new street car systems are typically on light gauge, yet the old belt line was a heavy gauge
system. The issues with the solution of using the existing rails are on the Oakland side and the
ability to cross the Union Pacific lines at grade. The PUC rarely grants those kinds of approvals.
Chair Johnson pointed out that no matter what gauge rail system was used, that issue would have
to be dealt with. She believed the rail system alternative that should be looked at should be
focused on using the existing infrastructure in place and we should not spend a lot of money and
time looking at rail systems that don't fit our current infrastructure. Chair Johnson asked if there
were any costs estimates using the current rail and gauge.
Andrew Thomas stated that not all costs estimates were available but did have good costs
estimates for what it would take to put in a new system. Chair Johnson would like a cost estimate
using existing rails and Andrew Thomas explained the issues relating to costs savings for
existing rail system and creating cars that are designed for light gauge rail.
Chair Johnson mentioned that the San Francisco Muni system is using old cars and they work
very well. She also suggested that a transportation solution be in place even before base
development starts, and would like to find a solution for transportation throughout Alameda over
to Fruitvale BART.
Andrew Thomas agreed. He stated that they were meeting with the City of Oakland and the Port
of Oakland to get an idea on how these agencies feel about this, as well as with AC Transit and
BART. He mentioned that if an at-grade crossing of the Union Pacific Lines was obtainable,
then that option would look very good. If not, then we'd be looking at building an elevated
system or diving under. Member Matarrese suggested comparing what Caltrans has done
between San Francisco and San Jose. Chair Johnson suggested some sort of shuttle system get
started now.
Member Matarrese mentioned two items that were brought up at the AC Transit meeting. One
was electric buses which would make our fuel be AP&T instead of some oil company, similar to
golf carts.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,3,"Chair Johnson stated that the information given at the workshops should include the fact that
some solutions are never going to happen because they are so expensive, or at least not in the
foreseeable future. There are some solutions that are feasible long term, but we're looking at
short term feasible solutions that can get started even before base development starts.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A.
Recommendation to approve a 10-year lease agreement with Nelson's Marine for
Building 167.
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager introduced David Jaber, regional vice-
president of PM Realty Group. Mr. Jaber presented a short analysis regarding the Nelson's
Marine issue. Mr. Jaber recommends the lease and supports the market rent for Nelson's
Marine. He also analyzed the $34M difference that was presented by the boat yard attorney at
the last ARRA board meeting.
Mr. Jaber gave a brief background and discussed how the fair market value of the Nelson's
Marine rent was determined: Nelson's Marine was one of the first groups out to Alameda Point,
with a 5 year lease which contained a clause that allowed for renewal at 90% of fair market
value. This survey was performed by Dunn Associates and that helped determine the fair market
value. The fair market value component provided by Dunn & Associates was on the base rent.
When the rent survey was done, the focus was on four things: 1) review of the lease and the
leases, 2) site coverage ratio, 3) the gross rent and net rent conversion, 4) the review of the rent
per square foot.
Mr. Jaber gave a review of the leases, comparing the costs between two boat yard leases for
taxes, insurance, and maintenance. He analyzed the numbers -- using a 20 yr. term to help
explain the differential -- which showed that the $34M loss, proposed by the opposing four
boatyards, was not supported. His analysis further justified that the net lease proposed comes
out with the appropriate rate. Mr. Jaber concluded that the fair market value -- the 31.5 % based
upon the 90% of fair market value -- is appropriate for the lease. He included percentage rent,
the ability to prosper as the tenant prospers, sublease recapture, which doesn't allow the tenant to
profit by bringing in subtenants, rental increases, 2% every year, justified considering there is the
ability to reduce the land space by 75,000 sq feet, and lastly a 10 yr term is very appropriate.
Mr. Jaber recommended the Nelson lease for approval.
Mayor Johnson called a few speakers. Richard Lyons of Wendell, Rosen, Black and Dean spoke
on behalf of Nelson's Marine and addressed the legal aspects of the lease, explaining Mr.
Nelson's rights to extend the lease, right of first negotiation and the price for that right, and the
contractual obligation on the part of the City and Mr. Nelson to abide by determination of the
appraiser regarding the lease term. He requested that the two leases be approved.
Carl Nelson, president of Nelson's Marine thanked Mr. Jaber and Mr. Lyons and looks forward
to having his business here for at least another 10 years.
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,4,"Peter Lindh, representing the four boat yards came up to discuss the validity of the $34 million
shortfall that his clients projected if the Nelson's Marine lease is approved. He stated that the
$34M was based on the principles involved and that the actual lease terms themselves make the
shortfall about $36M.
Mr. Lindh explained that there were two specific flaws to the PM Realty (Mr. Jaber's )
argument. The first was that the two boatyards used in Mr. Jaber's analysis are not comparable
(triple net versus gross analysis); it's not fair market value. The second flaw is the .45 cents that
Nelson's is paying per square foot per month on maintenance. He stated the amount as
inaccurate and reiterated that the Nelson rate is not fair market value.
He discussed the cost of having a fixed rate - is $190,000 to the City of Alameda and stated that
the only adjustment that PM has suggested in their counter proposal is reducing the lease term
from 20 yr to 10 yrs. Mr. Lindh concluded and urged the Board, as a fiscal responsibility, to
require PM Realty to reevaluate and come up with a proposal that is more consistent with
economic reality and fair market value.
Chair Johnson asked if the City is going to lose money on this lease. Nanette Banks, Finance
and Administration Division Manager, Development Services, explained that the Nelson's lease
renewal was brought to the ARRA governing body for approval and the four boat yard attorney
raised questions about a $34M loss if we went forward with this lease. The ARRA Board
directed PM Realty and Development Services to research this issue. Ms. Banks further
explained that there hasn't been a counter offer, nor would there be, because according to the
Nelson's lease, they have the first right to negotiate at 90% fair market value and the appraisal
was to establish the fair market value.
Chair Johnson and Boardmembers discussed the issue of the Nelson's lease creating some unfair
advantage to other boat yards, and the original concern of the $34M loss. There were no counter
proposals to the Nelson's lease.
The Board approved the staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-0;
Abstentions-0
4-B.
Recommendation to approve a 5-year lease, with a possible (5-year) options with
Nelson's Marine for 400 linear feet of Pier 1.
No speaker slips. Recommendation approved and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4;
Noes-0; Abstentions -0.
4",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,5,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
Lee Perez, APAC Chair, spoke about the transition from the APAC to the various Boards and
Commissions which will be presented next month. Also, members of APAC have been working
very hard with staff in terms of planning the various public meetings, specifically the workshops
of March 3rd and 23rd. He expects a successful meeting.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
February 3rd was the last meeting. The next meeting has been rescheduled to March 14th from
March 3rd to accommodate the workshop. Three main items were discussed: 1) Remediation on
OU5, Coast Guard North housing. The final plan was due on February 18th, heading for a record
of determination and then implementation later this year. 2) Sites 6,7,8,9 by Encinal High School
- preliminary scope of work is out and final comments are due this month. Hope to proceed with
that in May 2005. 3) Discussion about location of some nuclear propulsion work and general
radiological materials and disposal out at the site in the Northwest Territory. A survey called the
Historical Radiological Survey Assessment is being formulated so that they know exactly what
happened in that location. A lot of material is put out at these meetings and the coordination of
these activities is something the public should be very interested in.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Bill Smith came up and spoke on various topics.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
5",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
5-B
Wednesday, April 6, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Vice Mayor Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 2, 2005.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Doug DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation on the March 3rd and March 23rd Community Workshops regarding
Transportation and the Preliminary Development Concept
Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, gave an overview of the planning process for Alameda
Point and the transportation planning process with presentations to follow. The consultant team
was also present for the first time at an ARRA Board meeting. Mr. Thomas updated Members of
the four major community workshops - that they've been very well attended. The Alameda Point
Land Use team has also had a number of briefings with the Planning Board, Transportation
Commission and other Boards and Commissions. There are two more major workshops planned,
the next one is scheduled for Saturday, May 7th, with the final community workshop in early
June. The plans are taking shape. For the next couple of workshops, the plans will be refined
with input from the community (both the transportation and the land use plans).
The March 3rd land use workshop will be rebroadcast on local cable channel 15 on April 7th, and
the March 23rd transportation workshop on April 14th.
Walter Rask and Jim Adams from Roma (Land Use consultants) were present, as well as
Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers Transportation consultants) to give respective
presentations.
1
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,2,"Walter Rask: Our agenda for this evening is two parts. The first part is to give an overview of
the preliminary development concept including the next steps. Part 2 - Fehr and Peers will be
presenting an overview of the transportation strategy focusing largely on the off base
transportation issues having to do with capacity of tubes and bridges and the major street
network. We'll be doing more work later internally on the base itself and their presentation will
conclude with discussion of the next steps in that process.
Land Use Slide Presentation
Mr. Rask presented the history of the Reuse Plan the ARRA adopted in 1996, which set forward
a basic framework for development not only of Alameda Point but also of the FISC and Annex
properties on the East side of Main Street. He discussed that we are only dealing with the area
west of Main Street. In 2003, the City Council adopted an amendment to the General Plan that
refined the Reuse Plan for mostly for the areas west of Main although there was a small area on
the northeast of Main and this set the basic framework for redevelopment of the base and the
targets for build out, the framework for the larger transportation system and perhaps most
importantly it set forth seven goals for redevelopment of the base: 1) to seamlessly integrate
Alameda Point with the rest of the community, 2) that Alameda become a vibrant new
neighborhood with a variety of uses in it; 3) to maximize the waterfront accessibility, 4) to
deemphasize the auto and to make new development compatible with the transportation capacity
that is available, and 5) to insure economic development, 6) provide a mixed use environment
and finally, 7) to promote neighborhood centers.
Mr. Rask discussed the challenges, including contractual commitments, large Historic district
area, ground water contamination, the Tidelands Trust places restrictions on the use of lands
under state tidelands and specifically excludes housing, the Wildlife Refuge, the green area, as
the effect of constraining development on the blocks between the western boundary and
Monarch Street, the 100 year flood area has to be mitigated either by raising the ground or
providing some kind of a sea wall, young bay mud poses problems of structural stability because
of the danger of liquefaction in earthquake events. There is also a whole gamut of regulatory
agencies that have a say on these matters. The plan as it currently stands has two major aspects.
The first is what we refer to as the framework plan that fixes the location and character of the
major streets and open spaces on the base and also identifies opportunities for certain civic
functions. The land use plan is the second half of the two part preliminary development concept.
Mr. Rask discussed the community concerns about Measure A, the Historic areas, etc. He stated
that the next steps in the planning process is to refine the plan and respond to the major issues
that have come up in the last workshop. One is a desire to more closely examine the notion of
neighborhood centers as the general plan calls for. More generally to address neighborhood
character issues. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit enhancements are a similar theme. At the next
workshop they will present some refinements, as well as new information on alternatives, and
then the refined transportation plan. Mr. Rask stated that the final workshop in June will be to
actually present the preliminary development concept and the transportation plan with the intent
is to bring it to the ARRA board in July.
Transportation Presentation
2
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,3,"Matthew Ridgway and Michael Keeling from Fehr and Peers gave the transportation
presentation. (Both the entire presentations are available for review and are on file with the
ARRA Secretary)
Mr. Ridgway gave an overview of the transportation strategy that has been developed and
discussed some of the major components for sustainable transportation, including land use
strategy, employment and retail, residential and retail, and to discourage auto use.
The
presentation included a menu of options and the challenges that go along with those options.
There was much discussion about the Tubes getting more constrained and congested from the
development within the region and Oakland. Mr. Ridgway presented some ideas about how to
minimize the impact on the tube.
The initial transportation strategy includes the use of ECO passes - the cost of purchasing ECO
passes will be built into the homeowner's association fees for anybody who lives at Alameda
Point. It will be built into the fees that are part of the employment component of Alameda Point
as well.
The plan also includes shuttle buses, enhanced ferry services to include bike stations, car share
programs, multi modal transit center, onsite transportation coordinator (a person who organizes
the car pools and van pools, makes sure the shuttles are operating efficiently) etc.
The presentation also included BART and AC Transit options/route alternatives as well as a light
rail option (Cybertran).
In June, the transportation options will be moved on to a more detailed evaluation and the next
steps include two major components: 1) continue to look at the long term transit options and 2)
take the short terms transit options that we've talked about and look at them with much more
detail so that we have something that is ready to construct on opening day of the project.
Another point, according to the MTC, in terms of land use densities to support transit, Alameda
would be considered suburban - rural, the density that you are talking about would fit into that
category, which in their mind would be something that in terms of regional funding you would
be very low on the list to compute for regional funding
Member Gilmore thanked Mr. Ridgway and commented that the presentation was very
informative ""if somewhat sobering."" Member Gilmore called several speakers:
first speaker, Helen Sause, made comments on the community workshops she's attended, stating
that the transportation system being developed is very critical. She discussed the need to find
partners with the rest of Alameda, not just with Alameda Point, and to engage the rest of
Alameda.
Second speaker, Neil Sinclair of Cybertran, commented on the light rail option and stated that he
anticipates being here in Alameda and continuing their development.
3
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,4,"Third speaker, Diane Lichenstein, APAC Chair, commented on the tremendous amount of work
and effort put into the community workshops and the preliminary development concept (PDC).
Emphasized continued dialogue with community.
Member Gilmore opened the item for discussion. Member Mataresse thanked staff and APAC
for hosting the community workshops with the boards and commissions, etc. and appreciates the
summaries of the meetings. He discussed the use of electric buses and liked the idea of the
duplex shop houses in the historic buildings. Has one regret regarding ""the Wall"" and
commented on the speed limit being dropped along Ralph Appezzato Pkwy.
Member deHaan: Stated his appreciation for everything that's gone forward and particularly
transportation, probably the most important segment. Had some concerns about the ferry service,
that it should service Oakland as well. He stated he liked the idea of the ECO Pass but had
concerns about how the fees are paid. He slso liked the idea of the tram. He stated that the
realism is that the ferry system, the bus systems and some other rapid bus system is the solution.
Member Daysog: Stated he was excited about the ECO pass and the BART shuttle alternative.
Stated that the transportation solution for Alameda Point is really the transportation solution for
the City of Alameda.
Member Gilmore: Excellent presentation with an incredible amount of information in great
detail yet very easy to understand. Agreed with Member Daysog that whatever transit solution
that we end up with is a transit solution for the entire island and not just for Alameda Point, and
that it needed to be in place yesterday. She made a specific comment about the potential light rail
connection from Alameda Point to the Fruitvale BART station. Stated that we can't lose sight of
the need for connections going off the island, but given our future developments - an ""across
island"" transit corridor as well which has the potential of taking people out of their cars as they
go from one end of the island to the other and generating more tax revenue for the city.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
APAC Chair Lee Perez commented on the tremendous amount of data received during this
evening's presentation. He thanked staff and the experts for their wonderful job of drawing in
citizens. Following the board's instructions, the APAC spent considerable amount of time
discussing what could replace the APAC. He mentioned the letter which was sent to the board by
APAC and hope that they will give it serious consideration. Mentioned the need of citizens'
input.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked and congratulated the APAC as well as staff for the incredible
outreach that was done because it has really shown in the increased attendance at the last several
4
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,5,"meetings. The APAC worked very hard to get the word out and it was nice to see the result and
to have a reasoned dialogued among all the citizens of Alameda.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese had nothing to report as he was unable to attend the last RAB meeting due to
illness. He stated he would be unable to attend the next meeting as well due to a special City
Council meeting being held at the same time. He will provide the secretary with the minutes of
the two meetings, so that they may be included in the packet.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Bill Smith spoke on various topics .
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the open session meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
5
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:11 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only.
There were no speaker slips.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Acting Executive Director, Bill Norton, gave a brief overview about the work session on the
ARRA Budget and introduced Development Services Director, Leslie Little, who introduced
staff : Nanette Banks, Jennifer Ott, and Stephen Proud.
Leslie Little gave a powerpoint presentation on the Budget Planning for Alameda Point. The
presentation focused on transition planning and preparation for the development of Alameda
Point. The information presented expresses the existing conditions in the current ARRA
budget and also the implications of some of the decisions that have been made during current
negotiations. Ms. Little discussed two options to consider: 1) how to transition in the event
that the developer (APCP) elects to proceed with the development of Alameda Point and, 2)
how to transition if APCP chooses NOT to proceed.
Ms. Little discussed the first scenarios (APCP proceeding), including the Alameda Point
Bond, and that the activities that are currently being paid from it would transfer as direct cost
to the developer; approximately 18 months. Other responsibilities would also shift to the
developer, leasing and property maintenance activities, other financials responsibilities like
project related tax increments, and current debt obligation.
The second option was discussed (APCP electing not to proceed). Ms Little noted that this
issue is a ""structural deficiency"" in the ARRA Budget. She stated that there are expenditures
that are greater than the revenues at this point. She explained that if the developer doesn't
elect to proceed, the key issues moving forward are: the Alameda Point Bond will be
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,2,"exhausted some time around Sept and October; there are a number of deferred costs, or
capital costs, that are expected would be part of the developer's pro forma; and the debt
payments that began to come due in 2006. Also included in the presentation was the current
ARRA staff load on the existing ARRA budget.
Ms. Little continued to discuss some challenges to the ARRA budget. She explained that by
2006 and 7 we will have spent down our fund balance and, by 2008, we won't have enough
to balance our budget. She discussed how a large part of the ARRA budget is contributed to
municipal services -- about 1/2 of what we take in annually, $10M in revenue. She stated that
the presentation is intended to start the conversation about the need to either increase
general fund revenue opportunities to tackle some of the costs, or decrease the general fund
expenditures out at Alameda Point because we don't have the resources to continue to
support them.
Ms. Little discussed the current pro forma and its assumptions regarding new public
revenues, primarily in property tax pass thru, the sales taxes, property transfer taxes, etc.
with the sale of the homes (new development) = revenues coming into the general fund.
She concluded the presentation, summarizing that staff is preparing for APCP to move
forward in the next two months and that we will need to transition quickly negotiate a
disposition and development agreement at 18 months and move into an implementation
mode; subsequently, if APCP does not move forward, there are implications regarding
dealing with long term costs over time. Ms. Little mentioned a subsequent ""phase 2"" ARRA
Budget workshop.
Councilmember de Haan expressed concern with the Navy's inability to fulfill the
commitment to the 18 mos. transition period. Stephen Proud addressed his concern by
explaining that we are trying to expedite the time line as much as possible, to the extent that
the Navy would be able to make the property available to us sooner. He discussed various
issues on the timeline that we (ARRA) have to accomplish, specifically the environmental
review process.
Boardmembers and staff discussed general leasing issues/opportunities at Alameda Point,
with Chair Johnson mentioning activities to attract film productions.
Member Matarrese expressed concern about the ""structural problem"" of the ARRA Budget,
stating that perhaps we' ve set the system up for failure - and that we may be providing
services that we simply cannot afford given our leasing capability. Leslie Little addressed
his concern by explaining that once there is a DDA, the actual costs that are being born by
the budget now, would have to be reduced significantly, specifically the municipal services.
Member Gilmore asked about insurance expenses. Leslie Little explained that the tenants
themselves carry liability insurance as part of their lease requirement.
Member Daysog initiated discussion about the proposed mitigation where the general fund
reduces dependency on the ARRA and absorbs 1.8million dollars in expenses. The
municipal services funding resources was discussed.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,3,"Member Gilmore summarized the challenges of reducing the amount of expenditures in the
ARRA budget, by allowing the general fund to absorb those expenditures. Bill Norton
replied that staff provided the ARRA Board with this detail to see the impact of the changes
on the general fund.
3-B.
Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Direct P.M. Realty, Acting as
Property Manager, to Enter Into a Contract with Courtney Giampolini to Waterproof
City Hall West (Building One) in an Amount not to Exceed $966,650
Nanette Banks provided photos of the extensive water damage in various locations of
Building 1(City Hall West). Building 1, like other buildings at Alameda Point, have
problems that require a lot of work, specifically asbestos remediation, lead paint and
waterproofing, roof and other capital upgrades. Ms. Banks introduced Rick Jones,
construction manager from PM Realty Group.
After Mr. Jones explained the problems with the buildings, he and Chair Johnson had
conversation about the contractor bidding process and if this process was approved by the
ARRA. Ms. Banks explained that in an exhibit to the property management agreement with
PM Realty, PM Realty is allowed to use their own process for selecting contractors for us.
Member deHaan, as well as the other boardmembers, expressed concern about the almost
$1M.cost for the building repair. Member Gilmore questioned the long-term ""guarantees"" to
this costly solution. She wanted reassurance that the same problems don't resurface in a
year, after spending $1M. Mr. Jones explained that there is a 10 yr warranty, which is pretty
standard in the industry.
Staff and boardmembers discussed other options for housing City Staff. Bill Norton
explained that there is no other space available for city staff to move into. There was also
further discussion about window replacements. Mr. Jones stated that 40 windows would be
replaced, and the other 200 are aluminum.
Member Daysog stated that the ARRA is in a fiscal crises and as such non-life threatening
projects, like waterproofing, I believe need to be delayed especially if the professional
opinion is that delay doesn't result in significant cost increases to the project.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Daysog but stated that (Building 1) is a workplace for
our workers and we can't have our city employees working in those conditions. She also
requested a briefing for discussion of the ARRA board the bidding process and requirements.
The Board approved the staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-1
(Daysog); Abstentions-0
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,4,"4. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\April 19.Special ARRA minutes.doc
4",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
One speaker slip from Helen Sause, however she was not present.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
4.
PRESENTATION
4-A. Presentation/Update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud briefed the Board on two different fronts: 1) the Navy conveyance process, and 2)
the land planning effort. A proposal has been submitted to the Navy - they wrote a counter
proposal that we responded to which is under consideration right now with them. We're hoping
to have an official response from the Navy by the end of June and that coincides with Alameda
Community Partners election to proceed timeline.
Mr. Proud gave a brief overview of the May 7, 2005 Community Meeting, commenting that staff
is pleased with the community's continued participation in the planning process and there was a
lot of good feedback. The next community workshop is June 8th at Mastick. The next step would
be to come back to the ARRA board with a copy of the preliminary development concept for the
regular July ARRA meeting.
Member Mataresse requested that a section be included that has a summary of compliance with
the General Plan amendment, compliance with the Economic Development Strategic plan and
compliance with other relevant plans, for that preliminary development concept that will be
coming back in July.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,2,"5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Provide Direction to the Acting Executive Director regarding the term of the lease
extension for Building 613 Sublease Agreement between the ARRA and Alameda
Point Collaborative.
Debbie Potter requested direction on a sublease between the ARRA and APC for building 13
which is currently being used as an office to house the Red Cross. She gave a brief history of the
lease and requested extension thru Dec 31, 2006 SO that it coincides with the overall development
plan for Alameda Point. Several representatives from APC spoke in support of a lease extension
until 2012, including Doug Biggs and Jim Franz.
In response to Member Matarrese regarding the time frame for development of that parcel, Bill
Norton replied that plans are for the Navy to turn that property over to the City at the end of
2006. Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, also noted that if we reach an agreement
with the Navy and the developer at the end of 2006, infrastructure and geotechnical work would
start in 2007
After discussion from Boardmembers regarding the timing of development, Chair Johnson
advised that it would make more sense to have the shorter term now and consider a longer term
when we know more at the end of Dec 2006, supporting staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-5; Noes-0
Abstentions-0
5-B.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Bill Norton, acting Executive Director, introduced this item with an overview of Part 1 of the
Budget Study Session. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented Part 2 - a
summary of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget - by walking the Board through the staff report. She
discussed overriding issues: the pro forma and the development assumptions at Alameda Point.
Member DeHaan raised the question regarding $1.8M that should be absorbed back into the
general fund. Bill Norton confirmed Member DeHaan's comments and advised the Board of a
new proposed budget for 05-06 for all city funds, including the general fund, noting that
revenues for different departments are down and we have accounted for this in our budget for the
next fiscal year.
There was brief discussion about the storage of surplus equipment the Navy left for the City.
Leslie noted some plans for the surplus equipment, including an auction to raise funds. She then
discussed the organizational structure for the Development Services Department, namely the
Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division - where 4 staff members are paid from the ARRA
Budget. Leslie discussed Building One tenants: Development occupies the entire 2nd floor; the
Alameda Development Corporation which maintains a 2nd floor office; and a storage room for
the Navy's records. Public Works, Fire Prevention and Information Technology occupy the first
floor and balance of the building.
2
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,3,"Leslie discussed the employee positions and vacancies in the department and how they fit
together with the three budget categories: Community Development, ARRA, and the CIC.
Municipal Services funding was noted in length, with Member Daysog requesting a separate
report/background information on the mitigation fund.
Bill Norton advised that there are still negotiations with the developer upcoming and if the
developer exercises their notice to proceed, they will make direct cost recovery payments, until
we have a disposition and development agreement, to DSD and the general fund.
Member Matarrese advised that we have to be prepared for the developer not exercising their
right to proceed, and that if we are able to segregate general fund obligations from ARRA fund
obligations, that would be the foundation for making a decision on anything less than the best
case scenario. Leslie Little concluded her presentation.
6.
ORAL REPORTS
6-A. Oral report from APAC.
There were no representatives from the APAC to give a report.
6-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave a brief overview of the last RAB meeting he attended.
7.
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.)
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
9.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
9-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
9-B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and U.S. Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
10. ADJOURNMENT
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,4,"Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
4
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A
Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the Approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The
motion was seconded by Chair Johnson and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A.
Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Steven Proud, project manager for Alameda Point, gave a brief update on Navy Negotiations,
focused on two fronts: submission of the conveyance proposal to the Navy; and the public planning
process. The conveyance proposal was submitted to the Navy in May and is under consideration by
the Navy right now. There have been meetings in support of that with some of the regulatory
agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and EPA. The next
meeting with the Navy to discuss the contents of the proposal is June 2, 2005. Mr. Proud reminded
the public and the Board that the next public workshop is on June 8th at the Mastick Senior Center,
starting at 6:30PM.
Chair Johnson thanked Mr. Proud and commented on all the positive feedback she's received from
the public regarding the workshops: that they appreciate all the hard work and effort and how
informative and helpful the presentations were.
Mr. Proud gave credit to Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, for coordinating the workshops, and
to Irma Frankel for coordinating the public outreach, and other staff members who have worked hard
to make sure the workshops are successful.
1
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,2,"Member deHaan asked when we're expecting the Navy to respond. Mr. Proud stated that we asked
for a response from the Navy by June 30th, which corresponds to the date in the conditional
acquisition agreement with Alameda Point Community Partners for there election to proceed.
3-B. Video presentation by the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York from the Alameda Naval Museum gave a brief (4 minutes) video presentation of the
Alameda naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York and Barbara Bach were two public speakers, both requesting a long term lease with
the right of renewal and the same terms for the ANAM.
Member deHaan thanked them for the effort they put in it and remarked that the video was
extremely informative. He commended them for the effort to get the shell improvements which were
over $700,000.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITMES
4-A. Report authorizing the Acting Executive Director to Execute a two year lease renewal (1-
year with 1-year owner option) with Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) for Building
77 at Alameda Point.
In response to Member deHaan's question regarding why the agreement is in front of the Board if
it's already been signed, Bill Norton explained that the agreement has not been signed by the
museum association, as they indicated they want at least a 5 year and probably a 20 year lease. So
they have not signed it. Mr. Norton further explained that the ANAM did have a 5 year lease.
However, there were performance criteria in the lease, but they did not have the ability to perform
over a 3 year period because they did not have time to actually occupy the structure until they got a
certificate of occupancy in March 2004, it's not reasonable to expect them evaluated on the
performance measure that they were required to. The original thought was to give them this prior
year plus 2 years upcoming, so that we could review the performance criteria during that period of
time. Mr. Norton advised, based upon some of the concerns that ANAM has, to modify the item to
authorize the Executive Director to enter into negotiations with ANAM for the lease, rather than
authorizing the existing lease agreement to be signed - enter into negotiations for a new lease.
There were several speakers, including the representative from Red Bridge Media, Ken Robles, who
is partnered with Veterans Administration Archival Department in Washington, D.C. in a historical
video project (video taping veterans) to keep the history alive.
Member Matarrese motioned for staff's recommendation to enter into negotiations for a
new lease with ANAM. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - O.
2
Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,3,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Oral report from APAC.
Chair Lee Perez was not present and the ARRA Secretary read written comments from Helen Sause
regarding her concerns on the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Chair Johnson advised that it was
unclear whether Ms. Sause's written note were drafted with Lee Perez as the APAC oral report, or if
she intended them to be just public comment.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese said he would have two RAB at the July 14th ARRA meeting.
6. ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body
has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker slip, Virginia Roberts, who supports Helen Sause's comments regarding
appointing a citizens committee to assist with the Alameda Point redevelopment.
Chair Johnson noted that public involvement is always encouraged and would like people to
continue to participate in the process.
7. COMMUNICAITONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
There was no additional communications from the Board.
8.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Chair Johnson advised that this item was a place holder in case it was needed, but that there was no
item to discuss.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, July 14, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:25 p.m. with Member Gilmore presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
After the Pledge of Allegiance Member Matarrese motioned to move the Closed Session (Item
3-A) to the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by
the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
None.
3.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
3-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
This item was moved to the end of the agenda.
4. PROCLAMATION
4-A. Proclamation to members of the APAC for their dedication and unwavering commitment
to the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore addressed the audience and APAC members. She spoke about how APAC has
helped the community understand the challenges and issues regarding Alameda Point. Member
Gilmore then read the proclamation and handed one out to each of the APAC members.
APAC Chair Lee Perez thanked the ARRA Board for the opportunity to serve over the last
several years - he spoke about how pleased they (the APAC) were with the response to the
Reuse Plan & the participation from the community. He also mentioned that it's been a long
haul over the last 12 years since they first started and they were pleased with the outcome so far.
Member deHaan, expressed his gratitude for the leadership and dedication that Chair Perez and
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,2,"all the other members of APAC contributed toward the planning efforts of Alameda Point.
Members Daysog, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson (who just arrived at this point) also expressed
their gratitude.
5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of March 2, 2005.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 6, 2005.
5-C. Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources extending the term for 90-
days and adding $54,000 to the budget for environmental consulting services.
5-D. Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
5-E. Recommendation to amend the approved FY 2005-2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000
for repairs to the Al Dewitt O'Club.
Member Gilmore motioned to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
6.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6-A. Presentation of the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point
establishing land use goals, transportation strategy and historic preservation strategy.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, discussed the updates on the Conveyance
process with the Navy and the status of the budget. The key topic discussed was the progress
with planning efforts regarding the PDC and introduced the document to the Board for their
review.
Mr. Proud advised that there are continuing discussions with the Navy on disposal strategies and
constraints with the property; and that we're moving forward with the Navy regarding a conveyance
agreement. He discussed the community meetings and the success in each of the workshops to
tackle specific topics that helped produce this draft document (the PDC). He further discussed
issues at Alameda Point (AP) about Navy conveyance and the land planning process.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, focused on the Community Reuse Plan and the draft
PDC. He discussed what the community's expectations for the development of AP and what the
real priorities are. He advised that the PDC was an integration of ""new"" with the ""old""
(Community Reuse Plan). Mr. Thomas explained the several Appendices of the PDC, which
included the Transportation Strategy, specifically the Broadway/Jackson feasibility study; and
the Historic Preservation element.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,3,"Regarding the Historic Preservation, Mr. Thomas discussed that there was a lot of community
involvement with questions regarding which buildings and homes to keep and which to get rid
of. The residential portion of the plan included 3000 new units: homes for sale and rentals.
There were several speakers who discussed various topics related to the PDC, including:
- Conversion of the naval base - Measure A
- Adequate school facilities at AP.
- Transportation planning
- Solar energy equipment
- Keeping the BOQ building for Veterans or Senior Housing
- Historic District Preservation
- Housing for all income levels
7.
ORAL REPORT
7-A. Oral report from APAC.
No oral report.
7-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese discussed topics from the last RAB meeting, including clean-up
methods, and how petroleum is being extracted. He also gave an update on the BCT activities
and the schedule for the site management program, which lists all the clean-up activities.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speaker slips.
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None
10. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:21 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Member Daysog presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 19, 2005
2-B. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to direct PM Realty Group, acting as
Property Manager, to enter into a contract with Manson Construction Company to dredge
The Alameda Point channel in an amount not to exceed $575,000.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
Presentation
3-A Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager gave a brief update on the AP conveyance
activities. There is a meeting scheduled with the Navy on September 29th to discuss, and come
to a resolution, on the ""divide' in the analysis of the value of the property. The outcome of that
meeting will be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting on October 5th Mr. Proud
introduced Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, to give an update on the Preliminary
Development Concept (PDC).
Mr. Thomas discussed staff's review of comments received from the public and from the ARRA
Board (of the July 14th meeting) and efforts to use this information to make revisions to the PDC.
The revisions include addressing and clarifying a number of issues, such as its role, its purpose,
and the Next Steps to clarify Historic Preservation issues. The document will also be revised to
include an additional appendix in response to some of the requests for more financial information
- the financial trade offs that are embedded within the PDC. The plan is to present the revised
draft PDC to the ARRA Board and the public at the October 5th ARRA Board meeting.
Revisions to the document will be in a red-lined, strikeout version so the public can very clearly
see where changes were made.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,2,"Mr. Thomas announced that we received a $250,000 grant Metropolitan Transportation
Commission Grant, a land planning grant to help with next phases of the planning for Alameda
Point, particularly around the transit center. There is also progress toward a memorandum of
agreement with BART on a $485,000. grant, a federal earmark that was received over a year ago
We have been meeting with representatives from the Navy and the Local Historic Preservation
Community to continue the discussion on the Historic Preservation issues that were generated by
the PDC, and that is in the context of the Section 106 consultation which is really a Navy lead
effort. A briefing to discuss the PDC and the 106 consultation process with the Historical
Advisory Board on Alameda Point is planned for October 6th. City Staff has also been invited
to
attend a League of Women's Voters workshop on September 29th and November 15th
Member Daysog called 2 speakers, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, and Neil Garcia
Sinclair of Cybertran who gave a quick update on the Cybertran/University of California/BART
coalition and the proposal of establishing a research center in transportation energy at Alameda
Point.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese was unable to attend last week's RAB meeting, so there is no report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker slip, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the VA,
development at Alameda Point; and various unrelated topics as well.
7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Daysog welcomed the new City Manager, Debra Kurita, who is also the Executive
Director of the ARRA, to her first ARRA meeting.
8. ADJOURMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 11:37 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Recommendation to Approve the Fourth Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
between the City of Alameda and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
Approval of the Consent Calendar item was passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;
Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
4.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-20.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Report from the Executive Director recommending the Approval of Alameda Power &
Telecom Sublease at Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Tony Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of the Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development concept (PDC) - A
Planning Feasibility Study for the Redevelopment and Reuse of the Former Alameda Naval Air
Station.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the revised PDC and discussed what the major
revisions were, including: alternative plans approaches, various constraints affecting the layout and
design, and a clarification in the executive summary that the PDC is a feasibility study, and not the
final ""plan"".
The revised PDC also included expanded discussion regarding Measure A issues, and a good
foundation for a solid transportation strategy. Mr. Thomas further summarized the revisions, stating
that the phasing program is conceptual and there was text added to include information on civic
community type facilities, churches and plazas, etc. emphasizing that the general plan calls for these
kinds of uses. There were a number of revisions to the Next Steps chapter, primarily the
environmental review and entitlement process for the first phase should our master developer choose
to proceed.
Chair Johnson called up the several speakers who discussed the following topics:
- concern about the insufficiency of neighborhood centers
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,2,"- a representative from AAPS requested a reuse study be included in the PDC for the historic
buildings
- a representative from the APC expressed their interest in continuing to be involved in the
development plan process
-
a representative from Operation Dignity expressed concerns about the Board accepting the
PDC in draft form
- representatives from HOMES and the Sierra Club expressed their appreciation and support
with the progress of the PDC compared to other developments.
Member Matarrese thanked the staff for providing the input and revisions. He agreed with the
speaker who mentioned that the Board should not approve a draft document; and rather, approve a
final document. He would like to see more information on a green standards plan and a plan for
sustainable communities and expressed concern about the word ""feasibility study"", afraid it might be
dismissed because it does not ""comply"" with the PDC. He further stated that the PDC document is
still conceptual. Members Gilmore and Daysog agreed with Member Matarrese's statements.
Member Daysog would like to see more information on the fiscal implications of the PDC, especially
on Phase II and Phase III.
Member deHaan reminded folks that there was a community reuse plan prior to this PDC, which
included the development of commercial and industrial spaces to maximize transportation.
Member Matarrese motioned for Council to direct staff to simulate the comments that were made
and produce a final document for approval. He requested the document be in red-line/strikeout
format so that revisions are clearly seen in the document.
City Manager, Debra Kurita, recommended that the draft revisions be text-only to save cost. It was
agreed by all Boardmembers to just bring back the document at the regular ARRA Board meeting in
November; there was no need to make a motion for this action.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, clarified some points to the Board. He stated that the
PDC is a component of the conditional acquisition agreement (CAA) that we have with APCP. Other
components include getting a conveyance agreement structure set forward with the Navy and then the
completion of the preliminary development concept. Based on the timing with regards to meeting
with the Navy, Mr. Proud recommended the revised document be brought back at the December
meeting, instead of November. All Boardmembers accepted this recommendation.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report, as Member Matarrese stated the meeting was the following day.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith spoke about various topics.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,3,"Alex McElree, Executive Director of Operation Diginity, requested the ARRA Board encourage the
City Council to fulfill the promise they made to Operation Dignity and to the homeless through the
homeless conveyance of the McCain/Feinstein Act and build the 39-Units (homes).
6.
COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-D
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 16, 2004
2-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 2005
2-C. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 1, 2005
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore).
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the ""text-only"" changes made to the July 5th Draft
PDC. The changes were made in response to comments heard at the July and October 2005 ARRA
Board meetings. Mr. Thomas summarized the major changes and asked that the ARRA approve the
changes as well as other modifications to the text, and identify final revisions in order to bring a
finalized document back to the Board at its regular meeting in February 2006.
A summary of the changes included:
- clearer description of the purpose of the PDC, identifies it as a planning study and not a
regulatory document without any legally binding effect.
- there is more emphasis and clarity that the plan for Alameda Point is a mixed-use plan,
maintaining financial feasibility and historic preservation.
- recommending work-live ordinance.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,2,"Changes were made in the Introduction, Land Use and the Next Steps chapters emphasizing that it is
the City's goal to have a sustainable environmentally sensitive development at Alameda Point. The
Next Steps chapter outlines the key issues that are still going to require additional study, particularly
the compromises and trade-offs. There is more description about how the non-Measure A
alternative will be evaluated in the EIR process; and further exploration of maintaining historical
preservation, as well as financial possibilities surrounding the historic buildings. Also included are
the next steps to implementing the Transportation Strategy.
Two appendices, the Transportation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality (Appendix E), were also revised.
Member Gilmore allowed the several speakers to make their statements prior to the Board making
their comments. The speakers discussed various PDC-related topics, including Historic
Preservation concerns regarding the Big Whites and the Hangars; requests for additional buildings
identified for Historic Preservation be placed on the HAB agenda/study list for February, and to
request and Historic Preservation Master Plan and an Adaptive Reuse Study to be done soon, or as
part of the Navy's Section 106 process. Also discussed concerns about the Seaplane Lagoon
development encroachments and non-measure A alternatives. Consideration of Building 3 for the
Neptune Beach Amusement Museum was discussed.
Alameda School Board representative thanked staff and the ARRA board for including the issues of
school facilities in the PDC. Alternatives in Action representative discussed issues regarding the
early termination of their lease and the ARRA's request of them for removal of a portable building.
Member Daysog asked what were the major changes to Appendix E (Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality). Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that there was clarity added
to the language and that the financial feasibility study done for the first phase will be replicated for
subsequent phases. There will be a better understanding of the financial feasibility and fiscal
neutrality questions once we are clear on the development programs. Member Daysog further
discussed his concern regarding the Measure A and non-Measure A options, and Phase I revenue
generation. Mr. Proud explained that projections made in the document have a built-in fiscal
mitigation payment which will come directly from project proceeds to offset public expenditures and
public revenues that we collect. Member Daysog requested more detail and clarity on the property
taxes for use on a range of services; he also requested a better understanding on the fiscal mitigation
payment and operational issues.
Member deHaan addressed issues in the body of the PDC and, with the consensus of the other board
members, requested several action items to be completed by staff:
1. Expand the paragraph in the Next Steps chapter to elaborate on the Historic
Preservation - what the Navy is doing concurrent with us on their studies.
2.
Provide more clarity on the commercial development plan for the 336,000 sq. ft. of
retail and identify the commercial endeavors being pursued.
3. Provide separate analysis (off-agenda) on the HazMat clean-up, scenario of costs
between single family vs. multi family, etc. for financial feasibility.
4. Regarding the timeline and series of studies to be completed on the Historic
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,3,"Preservation: Emphasize the need to get information at the earliest possible date so that
the information could be used in the process of developing a plan which is then
ultimately evaluated in the EIR, and NOT when the final EIR comes out.
5. Appendix E - What would Phase I of Fiscal Mitigation payment be? And an
explanation of why we are not contemplating municipal services fee (like Bayport)?
6. Continued emphasis that this ""Preliminary"" plan document is a step to a ""Final' plan.
All Boardmembers accepted staff recommendation to bring back a Final version of the PDC in
February 2006.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Boardmember Matarrese reported on the RAB meeting from November because he did not attend
the Dec. meeting (he was attending D.A.R.E.) There was a presentation on the remediation
strategies for Site 27, between Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Nelson's Marine. There were a
wide range of options (9 remediation strategies), and there was a uniform recommendation and vote
to advise the Navy to use the most efficient and rapid remediation strategy.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Marilyn York, Barbara Bach, and Ken Robles of the Alameda Naval Air Museum spoke about their
proposed 10-year lease. Chair Johnson advised that they are looking forward to receiving the lease
for review but have not seen it come to the Board yet.
6.
COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
Boardmember Daysog requested the Board address Gail Greeley's issues regarding Home Sweet
Home and moving a portable building. Member Matarrese requested an off-agenda report
addressing this same issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,4,4,AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-01-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- January 4, 2006- 6:40 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Auctions by the Bay, Inc.
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Staff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. The ARRA provided directions to
the real property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:55
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
January 4, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. February 1, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 4, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures for Special Legal
Counsel; Resolution Amending Resolution No. 002 Regarding the Powers and Authority
of the General Counsel.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out that the only difference between the City
Council policy and the ARRA policy is the unlawful detainer policy.
Approval of 2-A was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
Member Gilmore motioned for approval of 2-B as written, with the caveats to receive a
written report on unlawful detainers and revisit the policy in 6 months. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes -0;
Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of the Final Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, requested formal acceptance of the PDC. Acceptance of
the PDC represents an important step in completing some obligations made in ARRA's
agreement with the selected master developer, APCP: complete a plan with the help of the
Alameda community to identify the development opportunities at Alameda Point and the key
tradeoffs and challenges.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,2,"Page 2
As described in the plan, the PDC does not represent the FINAL development plan for Alameda
Point. It is a planning study with the basic message that to get through an entitlement process
and a planning process, and to actually see implementation will require some tough compromises
and decisions that have not yet been made. The PDC clarifies that when the important decisions
are made, all the necessary information will be available to the public and to ARRA. Important
issues are emphasized in the Next Steps chapter. The plan for the redevelopment of Alameda
Point will continue to evolve as we move through the entitlement process.
Member Daysog thanked staff for the memo provided by Darin Smith of Economic Planning
Systems (EPS) detailing the assumptions. He requested further sources, methodologies and
assumptions regarding information in Table 3 and in Table 4 - property taxes, assumptions in
terms of housing values, industrial and commercial, property transfer taxes. Member Daysog
explained that this information would be helpful for future generations of Alamedans to track the
fiscal health of this project.
There were several speakers on this item:
Birgitt Evans - represents the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS). Thanked
staff and Andrew Thomas for the PDC. Discussed concerns with removal of two seaplane
lagoon hangars (Bldgs. 11 & 12). Recommended construction of height-limited buildings to
preserve vista for future generations.
Elizabeth Krase, AAPS - thanked Andrew Thomas. Discussed concerns regarding the timetable
for the Preservation and Adaptive Reuse Studies, and the potential loss of the BOQ, Big Whites,
etc.
Joan Konrad - discussed importance of examining Measure A non-compliant alternative plan for
Alameda Point redevelopment and safe and easy walking distance to destinations - schools,
work and shopping.
Diane Lichtenstein - concerns about the constraints of Measure A. Reiterated that the PDC is
only a draft and wanted to emphasize the flexibility of the plans.
Helen Sause - commended Staff and the City on the PDC, stating that the public input has been
valuable. Discussed priority to see the development without restrictions of Measure A. Urged
ARRA to keep flexibility in development of the PDC and keep the alternative plan that would
permit AP to be developed in accordance with good planning principles.
Chair Johnson closed the public comment portion of this item.
Chair and Boardmembers thanked Andrew Thomas and the staff for the PDC. Member Gilmore
was particularly pleased with staff's response to public input and the Board's comments about
the Next Steps chapter. She emphasized that what's outlined in the Next Steps chapter gets
accomplished, yet not to tie ourselves down to a specific timeline, particularly since we don't yet
have the property. Chair Johnson agreed, stating that it was surprising how many residents don't",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,3,"Page 3
know that ARRA does not own the property yet. Member Matarrese repeated the notion of
ensuring ample time for dealing with Historic properties, having advanced notice for ARRA,
Planning, and the public - to understand what's ahead.
Member Daysog motioned for approval of this item. The motion was seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
3-B. Recommendation to Approve a 20-year Lease with the Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration (MARAD).
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager of DSD, presented the Board with the
lease, gave an overview of MARAD, a tenant on the base since 1997, and explained that the
lease negotiations have been going on since May 2002. The lease being presented included two
components: the lease combines the MARAD warehouse and pier uses.
In addition to generating, under this new lease, a proposed $1.8 M in the first two years with 3%
increases, MARAD is the largest electricity user in Alameda and responsible corporate citizens.
They' ve already spent $1M on dredging, an ARRA obligation, but MARAD put the money up
front. Chair Johnson discussed security fencing, possibilities of reconfiguring least intrusive
manner.
Member deHaan asked whether MARAD discussed possibilities of shouldering relocation of
Hornet and the different scenarios regarding the Hornet's location. Ms Banks replied that
MARAD couldn't make an initial investment and it is an obligation of ARRA, but that the 3%
increase in rent should pay for whatever decision is made. Member deHaan stated that MARAD
should strive to find dollars to relocate the Hornet, since it's to their benefit. Chair Johnson
suggested that MARAD may have better access to homeland security money.
Under the new lease, gross lease revenue for the first 2 years is 1.8M per year. Net is $800,000
to ARRA Chair Johnson requested a copy of pro forma. She also emphasized an important
attachment - Exhibit H - which outlines ARRA's obligations under the lease. Ms. Banks
explained that those obligations were negotiated down from the standard lease.
Member deHaan stated that MARAD is one of the best tenants at Alameda Point, but is
concerned about the 20 year cost to maintain the operation, and that they're not an asset for the
ambience of the development. Member Matarrese doesn't have a problem with MARAD being
here, recognizing that it's a multiple-use development; there is some industrial and commercial
use.
Chair Johnson expressed concern about a provision, in the MARAD lease, relating to Trident.
She questioned why they were intertwined, and why there is not separate, employer liability
insurance.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, explained that insurance is something that MARAD
and the Federal government can't get and it's in our interest to have this insurance in place.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,4,"Page 4
Mike Hampen, PM Realty Group, further explained that liability insurance of piers is required
whether there is a port manager or not. Ms. Banks said that the reference to Trident will be
removed, as there is no reference in naming the port manager in the agreement.
Member Matarrese requested an analysis on the risk assessment and liability of lease, stating that
staff and the City Attorney are being paid to review leases and contracts, not the responsibility of
the ARRA Board (to review leases, etc.). He recommended bringing this item back and the need
to keep MARAD as a tenant, to see the Navy in legacy.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Matarrese's request, stating she'd like a better definition of
what the potential expenses and risks are. She stated that MARAD is an excellent tenant, and we
don't want to lose them; we just need to understand the lease better. She also requested that the
Trident provision be completely separate and not included in the MARAD lease.
Member Gilmore expressed concern about the lease not being included in the packet for review.
She prefers to receive copies of complex documents and decide how deeply to look at the
documents or how much to rely on the staff report. Chair Johnson recommended that, at the
least, significant attachments (like Attachment H, etc.) be summarized in the staff report, or
be
included in the package.
Without a formal motion, all members agreed to continue this item to the March 1, 2006
ARRA meeting with a request for a more detailed analysis of the ARRA's risk assessment
and obligations under the MARAD lease.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave an overview of the Jan 5th meeting: The major item on the agenda was
the Petroleum Hydrocarbon Program update, highlighting the status and technical explanations
of the remediation taking place on sites spread across Phase 1 and several in Phase 3. He stated
that there was an amazing mass of contaminants being removed: jet fuel, gasoline, etc. The next
RAB meeting is Thursday, Feb 9.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan requested an update on the Tinker Ave. / Webster St. exchange, stating that it is
key to fully developing FISC.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,5,"Page 5
Member Matarrese reiterated the Dec. 2004 ARRA-approved intent of requesting all ARRA
leases (and licenses) come to ARRA, so they know what the arrangements are with tenants on
the property and to maintain their responsibility to the LIFOC.
Chair Johnson requested an update on the Hornet. Leslie Little, Development Services Director,
informed the Board that there is no lease negotiations ongoing at the time, and there has not been
an existing lease with the Hornet for 2 years. Ms. Little will provide a report to the Board at the
next meeting. Ms. Little reiterated that updates are provided to the ARRA in monthly financial
reports.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday - March 1, 2006-6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA, US Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:20
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
March 1, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-03-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-04-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday - April 5, 2006- 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 5, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-04-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-05-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- May 3, 2006--6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair
Johnson - 4.
Absent:
Member Daysog.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:25
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
May 3, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-05-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-06-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. June 7, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:08 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Certification of Golf Course EIR and Authorization to Proceed with Negotiations
with Port of Oakland and Army Corps of Engineers.
Elizabeth Johnson, Base Reuse Planner, presented an overview and requested certification of the
final EIR for the Alameda Point Golf Course and Hotel Project. The draft EIR was circulated in
2004, with revisions prepared in 2005 to accommodate additional information regarding
wetlands on the site. The response to comments is also complete. Janie Alsep and Mark
Windsor of EDAW, and Jack Fink from Moffat Nichol Engineers, the consultants who assisted
in the preparation of the final EIR, were present to answer questions from the Board.
Chair Johnson asked if there was a time limit to start the project once it is certified. Elizabeth
Johnson explained that the EIR is programmatic which allows us to go forward with negotiating
with the Port or the Army Corp to get materials for the site. Chair Johnson wanted to clarify to
the public that, at this point we haven't seen that the project is economically feasible; that we're
not moving forward with this project, and this is just a very preliminary action. Elizabeth
Johnson concurred and further explained that the point of negotiating to get the dredge material
would be to determine the economic feasibility.
Member Gilmore clarified that if/when the project is determined to be economically feasible, we
would still need a separate EIR for the Hotel/Conference Center. Member deHaan and Elizabeth
Johnson discussed the current dredging at the Port of Oakland and that Alameda Point is the
secondary site to receive this dredge material, the primary site being Hamilton Field Wetland",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-06-07,2,"Page 2
Recreation. In response to member deHaan's question regarding the value of the dredge
materials, should the golf course project NOT go forward, Elizabeth Johnson explained that we
would be paid a Tipping Fee for the dredge materials.
Member Daysog questioned the delay in having an economic analysis. In response, Chair
Johnson reminded the Board that there was a several-year process where this consideration was
going on - we had a Hotel expert and even had an RFP on hotel complexes. At that time,
however, the downturn in the economy left the only people willing to propose a project was that
we owned a five-star hotel and paid them to manage it, and that was something the ARRA
wasn't willing to do. Elizabeth Johnson further discussed that the ARRA, in 2004, directed staff
to go ahead with preparation of the EIR in anticipation of the Hotel market coming back. Debbie
Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, concurred with this discussion,
adding that the hospitality industry has taken a while to bounce back since 9/11. She further
explained that once the EIR is certified, and we negotiate a Tipping Fee with the Army Corp and
the Port of Oakland that makes sense, then we can restudy the issue of the economic viability of
the project.
There was one speaker on this item, David Kerwin, who asked when and how often soil testing
will be done, expressing concern about loosened toxic materials if the property is not used for
a
golf course. Elizabeth Johnson responded that there will be a site-testing protocol in place.
Approval to certify the final EIR was motioned by Chair Johnson and seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 1 (Member
Daysog); Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese stated that he was unable to attend the last meeting and has no report.
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 7:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-07-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. July 5, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:50 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
Member Gilmore lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 7, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions
-
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese did not have a report.
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 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-07-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-08-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- August 2, 2006-5:46 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of Case:
Kienowski Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
ARRA gave direction to legal counsel to support the Chapter 11 Plan.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Staff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. ARRA provided instructions. No
action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Since Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 2, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-08-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
2-A
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 2, 2006.
2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
Recommendations to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Three-Year
Consultant Agreement with Trident Management, Inc. in the amount of $325,000.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented an overview of the Trident Management
Agreement and the port services they provide to Alameda Point, primarily to MARAD and the
Navy to Service the ships. Trident has been providing port services for Alameda Point since
September, 1996. Their original contract expired in 2002, and they are currently on a month-to-
month status with an annual rate of $474,636.
In 2004, the operating subsidy to Trident was reduced, and in return, the ARRA relinquished its
share of the Trident sublease revenue. In the fall of 2004, Trident and the City Manager (Jim
Flint) mapped out an agreement for a new five-year contract, which was never memorialized into
a contract. Since that time, staff has been attempting to renegotiate the contract.
Before the Board tonight is a three-year contract that can be mutually agreed upon by the City
and Trident",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,2,"Member Gilmore asked for an explanation of why we did not go out to bid. Ms. Little explained
that, since Trident was the inaugural port service provider, we tried very hard to work something
out with them that was less expensive than what would have been charged historically. Staff
also recommends that at the end of this three year contract that we do go out to bid.
Member Matarrese requested that the Board receive the policy on bidding and what the contract
is, recognizing that it is a legacy and wants to make sure, going forward, we eliminate that
uncertainty.
Approval was motioned by Member Gilmore and seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow (9/7) and will have a report in
October.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker, Elected East Bay Regional Park representative, Doug Siden, Alameda
resident. Mr. Siden discussed as background that the EBRPD has been participating with the
City of Alameda in the planning process for the former Naval Air Station over the last 10 years.
EBRPD's concern has been to see parkland included at Alameda Point located at what has been
called Triangle Park (between the Hornet and the City's mini park along the shoreline). It has
always been shown in the studies that this property was going to be a parkland. In support of the
City's process, the EBRPD has applied to the State of California for a grant from Prop. 12
monies, and EBRPD has received $250,000, which is designated for the Triangle Park.
Mr. Siden expressed the concern of the EBRPD that under the provisions of Measure 12, land
tenure has to be secured by the end of this year, and the project has to be completed and the
money expended by the end of next year. So there will be another planning process, but the
money will be lost in terms of the City of Alameda using it at the Triangle Park, if it cannot be
expended by the end of next year. The Park Agency will re-apply and be able to use the grant
money somewhere else, but will need to move forward on an alternative grant use because of the
same requirement of completing the project by next year. EBRPD would like to get started with
the first portion of improvements to the Triangle Park. Included in their plans is to begin
creating a grassy area for picnics, parking, and tie-in with the City park upgrade, with an
interpretive center. They would also like to showcase green building, install solar cells for
energy and upgrade for an aquatic center.
Mr. Siden also discussed Measure AA, a $225m bond with the first 25% going to cities based on
population. The City of Alameda received over $2m, and that money would soon be expended.
EBRPD is looking toward the year 2008 to ask the voters to extend the same provisions so that it
would not be a new tax but rather a continuation of an existing measure.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,3,"Member Matarrese and Chair Johnson asked what portion of Triangle Park Improvements the
$250,000 would buy us. Referring to a map, Mr. Siden described the lower end toward Encinal
High School and the City's mini park and said that the EBRPD will maintain it.
Member Matarrese asked the ARRA Executive Director, Debra Kurita, to get staff to work on a
way to accomplish us getting this investment in town. He expressed concern that the deadline
for getting the land dedicated and completing the project is fast approaching and requested this
item be moved up on the priority list and brought back to the ARRA Board.
Debra Kurita responded that staff will agendize and bring this item back to the Board at its next
meeting on October 4, 2006.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-26,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, September 26, 2006- 6:01 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding APCP's withdrawal
from Alameda Point and from negotiations with the Navy.
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
September 26, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-26.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. October 4, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:05 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 2006.
Approval of 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.
Member deHaan had questions about two of the subleases due to their duration and requested
information about the specific tenants, as well as an overview of current leasing prospects.
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration of DSD, explained that TransFreight Express wants
to relocate their corporate headquarters and distribution center at Alameda Point. The other lease
is to Makani for Building 19 to be used as R&D and office space. It is an alternative energy
(wind-based) company that may also be interested in using the runways for experiments. Leslie
Little, Development Services Manager, indicated that there continues to be ongoing interest in
the buildings at Alameda Point, but pointed out the obviously expensive building improvements
necessary to make them usable, which tends to limit some potential businesses.
Approval of 2-B was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
2-C. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to Execute a contact agreement with
WRT/Solomon E.T.C. in the amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area planning activities
for Alameda Point.
Member deHaan inquired about the source of the $250,000 and whether we are in a position
today to approve the contract, given the master developer situation. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse
and Community Development Manager, explained that this is pursuant to a $250,000 grant
received from MTC - with City contribution of $3,000 - for the purpose of more detailed
planning of the transit node. To not go forward at this time means losing the grant. This study
will impact future land development plans; traffic and transit issues will need to be addressed
regardless of who the developer is.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,2,"Page 2
There was one speaker on this item, Diane Lichtenstein, who praised the four workshops
outlined in the contract and requested that after each workshop a summary report to be generated
(perhaps in the local newspaper as well as the City's website). She also recommended
expanding the scope of the ferry analysis beyond the half-mile radius of the station as presently
indicated. She also requested that all drafts of the report be available electronically.
Approval of 2-C was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Status Report on East Bay Regional Park District Request for Long-Term Lease.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, stated that, at the September
ARRA meeting, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) representatives Doug Siden and Mike
Anderson indicated that EBRPD is ready to begin funding improvements at the 26-acre
Enterprise Park through the use of Measure AA and Proposition 12 money (totaling $500,000).
A portion of the Proposition 12 funds ($100,000) specify that land must be secured by the end of
this year, and the project must be completed and the money expended by the end of next year. It
also requires a 20-year lease on the land. According to the staff report, there could be a smaller,
Phase 1 lease or a lease for the entire 26 acres. There are several other leases in place that
encumber some portions of the 26 acres, including Alameda Soccer Club (until 2008) and the
Hobby Shop (until 2010).
Member Daysog mentioned that 11 years ago, there was concern that EBRPD wanted an RV
parking lot as part of their plan for this land. Ms. Potter confirmed that this is no longer an
option.
Doug Siden, elected EBRPD representative, reiterated the funding and timing requirements. He
introduced Mike Anderson, Assistant General Manager, who presented a map of the proposed
area and plans. It consists of 10.6 acres and excludes current leased properties. Ultimately, the
District would like the entire 26 acres but could start with this plan. Proposed plans include
family picnic sites, clean up of the tennis and basketball courts, development of the shoreline
trail to tie to the existing beach area, and clean up of the beach and boat launch areas. Future
plans include a natural planning resource area and interpretive center, as well as boating
instruction at the marina.
Chair Johnson pointed out that other community groups have looked at this site, and also
questioned what would happen if the community would rather keep some of the facilities as they
are. Mr. Anderson responded that if the City prefers to have more community input about use of
this area, EBRPD could either use $100,000 of the funds somewhere else in order to not lose
them - trimming their ultimate project to $400,000 - or use that first $100,000 to simply clean
up the beach area and shoreline trail. Chair Johnson stressed that more community feedback
about what type of use for the area is preferable is needed before committing to a 20-year lease.
Member Matarrese felt that the primary areas to spend the $500,000 should be the beach, bay
trail and picnic grounds. Mr. Anderson agreed that this should be doable and hoped to move",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,3,"Page 3
forward in negotiating a lease for these specific areas. Member deHaan expressed his desire that
EBRPD continue to be involved in the area and asked how the funding stream would be
maintained in the future. Mr. Anderson indicated that possibly a small assessment district would
have to be established if the project becomes larger. Member Matarrese stated that he would like
a long-term commitment from EBRPD for the area. The consensus among ARRA members and
EBRPD was the first priority is extending the Bay Trail from the boat ramp along the beach to
the Hornet; if additional funds remain, the other areas will be considered.
Member Matarrese motioned that EBRPD make improvements on the Bay Trail from the
existing boat ramp as far north as possible, including cleaning up the beach. If additional
funds remain, they would be used for the picnic area and former RV parking lot. Staff was
directed to negotiate a lease with EBRPD to accomplish this. Member Daysog seconded the
motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update.
Debbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an Alameda Point update
presentation to the Board. The presentation included a chronology of the ARRA's negotiations
with the Navy and an explanation to the community on how we went from ""no cost"" to paying
$108.5 million for the Navy property. Ms. Potter also discussed the master developer, APCP's,
election not to proceed with the project and presented staff's recommendation for an initial next
step.
Ms Potter summarized the genesis of how we got from a no cost EDC to a 108.5 million dollar
purchase price: She explained how the ARRA's PDC and the general plan call for over 3 million
square feet of commercial development. In January 2004, however, the Navy sent a letter
requesting that we submit a formal amendment to our ""no-cost"" EDC application to formerly
make the case about why we felt like we continued to be eligible for a ""no-cost"" EDC. The
Navy's letter further stated that it could not continue to work with us to negotiate on our early
transfer without such an amendment. The letter also said that they were more than happy to
negotiate a ""for-cost"" EDC with the ARRA. Because the Navy would be the ultimate entity to
deciding whether or not we were still eligible for the no cost EDC and because they had clearly
communicated to us that they felt we were no longer eligible and because legislation was in the
works to preclude no cost EDC's in the future, the ARRA made a decision that it would be more
effective if we sat down and negotiated with the Navy for a for-cost""conveyance. We started
our ""New Beginnings"" with the Navy in 2004 but the federal government also eliminated no cost
economic development in 2004 and none of the bases that are closed as part of the BRAC 5 are
going to eligible for a no cost economic development conveyance, most of those properties are
going to be disposed of as is where is. So it took us a little over 2 years to negotiate with the
Navy to prepare the PDC and to negotiate a land price. And in June of this year we concluded
negotiations with the Navy with a draft term sheet that included a $108.5 million dollar purchase
price. On September 21st, APCP withdrew from the project, citing the downturn in the
residential market and that they could no longer support the $108.5 million line price given the
land plan.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,4,"Page 4
With that negotiation process and chronology behind us, and the withdrawal of our Master
Developer, Staff is proposing, as the initial next step, that we test the market through a request
for qualifications (RFQ) process with the current term sheet. In the event that we are unable to
identify a replacement development then we would work with the Navy on an alternate
disposable strategy, most likely a public sale, an approach that the Navy had been taking of late.
Chair Johnson asked about the on-going work with the Navy, in the event that a buyer under the
current term sheet doesn't come forward. Ms. Potter answered that we will continue to run our
leasing program, and the Navy will continue to run it's environmental clean up program. Chair
Johnson also asked about the cost of working with the Navy to move forward with alternatives if
a replacement developer isn't identified. Ms. Potter explained that the ARRA's budget did
consider a scenario where the master developer didn't go forward and staff is funded in the
ARRA budget and consultants would probably need far fewer consultants then we've had when
we've been in activity negotiations on a term sheet and those kind of things, but we would still
need to work with our environmental consultant and our out side counsel, those costs are
included in the ARRA's budget.
To answer Chair Johnson's question about what types of consultants would we still continue to
need, Ms. Potter answered that we would continue to use an environmental consultant because
we comment on all of the Navy environmental clean up documents. Chair Johnson asked if we
should ask the Navy to pay for the consultants at that point.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, clarified that these are consultants that we use to
protect the City's interest when it comes to the work that the Navy's doing on clean up as well as
if there gonna be issuing opinions about the tidelands trust, then we need to have our experts
weighing in about the tidelands trust and where were believe the legal issues are and those kinds
of things.
Member Daysog began a discussion regarding the ARRA's no-cost EDC agreement with the
United States Navy. He referenced several paragraphs of the Navy's letter to Debbie Potter dated
April 7, 2003 regarding the basis for the Navy approval of a no cost EDC. Member Daysog is
very concerned about the $108 million purchase price, stating that if APCP couldn't work
it
through, that it would be difficult to find a replacement master developer. He'd rather see the
$108 million go toward public amenities that have been contemplated.
The Chair, Boardmembers and Staff discussed, at length, the challenges we faced and the
available options we continue to deal with in order to move forward. Member deHaan and Chair
Johnson discussed researching a concept that looks at phases in the future to anticipate changes
in the market. The Board also expressed their interest in going back to a no-cost EDC (build less
residential), but Ms. Potter explained that, according to the Navy, a no-cost EDC was dead,
because a project that included less residential was not economically viable. She said, however,
that if the ARRA desires, we could continue discussions with the Navy about convincing them
that were still eligible for our no cost EDC. She further discussed that the ARRA does have an
agreement, an executed MOA with the Navy, but that the Navy is going to require us to submit
an amendment to that no cost EDC.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,5,"Page 5
David Brandt further clarified the more fundamental legal problem which is, we would have to
amend our EDC application and unfortunately, the Navy will argue that there's no more legal
authority over a no cost EDC so we would be essentially be giving up our no cost EDC.
Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese would like more information and analysis about whether
we are legally able to hold the Navy to the existing no-cost EDC agreement.
Member Daysog expressed the importance of involving the public so that the $108 million isn't
spent on projects that veer so far away from the community resource reuse plan and the public
amenities that have already been contemplated. Ms. Potter addressed Member Daysog's concern
by noting that the negotiated price of $108.5 million was based on a proforma that provided
fiscal neutrality, provided for the sports complex, provided for the open space, provided for 25%
affordable housing, so all of the goals that has been identified over the years were taken into
account and provided for with that land purchase price. Granted that tax increment was pledged
to the project that was part of it too, but it provided in all of the transit, the shuttle, the ecopath is
all of the things that have been talked about over the last several years, were all accounted for in
the proforma that had the $108.5 million dollar land purchase price.
Member deHaan asked about the process used at other closed military bases, including Mare
Island and the Presidio. David Brandt explained that the Presidio was conveyed under a trust but
that federal legislation is needed for that. Mr. Brandt said that we could approach our delegation
to ask if that's feasible.
The first speaker on this item, Pam Telschow, expressed how glad she was that the ARRA was
going back to consider every option and that they are not just going to jump into looking for a
new Master Developer. Chair Johnson expressed her opinion that she felt it was a remote
possibility that another developer would just step right in where APCP left off. The second
speaker, Helen Sause, also echoed Ms. Telschow's concerns and the direction of the Board,
urging them to select and find those developers that have very deep experiences in commercial,
light industrial retail, and other forms of development. She also suggested that the selection
process involve the community. Chair Johnson wanted the public to have a full understanding
that although the Development Services Dept. has received numerous inquiries, those inquiries
may not be viable. The third speaker, Elizabeth Krase, recommended we find a master developer
that would keep keeps more of the historic buildings.
Member Matarrese commented that he is heartened by the attendance of tonight's meeting and
that it's very important that we also look at the strength of our controls on the planning and our
city restrictions on development. He further stated that the comments from the speakers are
valuable and would like to see them translated into where we go forward. Member Daysog
commented that it's absolutely vital for the City of Alameda through the ARRA to continue to be
a leader in converting the base and to not allow the Navy to be in the drivers seat through
a
public action process. There was further discussion about the caretaking of the property and
requesting that the Navy return to those responsibilities.
Debbie Potter summarized the direction from the Board and other issues to explore: researching
the legality and shear logistics of the numbers to see if we can revert back to a no-cost EDC; the",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,6,"Page 6
parallel path of moving forward with an RFQ process to see if there is a developer who wants to
step into the existing field; a public sale; federal legislation on a trust; caretaker issues, etc.
A motion to initiate an RFQ and to reevaluate all other options discussed was motioned by
Chair Johnson and seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese attended the September 7th meeting, highlighting issues regarding additional
radiological testing of sites 1,2, and 32. There was also an update on site 25, the Coast Guard
north housing and a observation of a violation of the marsh crust ordinance (trenching and
digging). Member Matarrese would like the City to investigate further.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Per Member Matarrese's earlier discussion of the RAB meeting regarding Site 25, Member
deHaan requested an update at the next regular ARRA meeting on the status of Site 25.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. November 1, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006.
Member Daysog pulled Item 2-A to articulate what he meant when he referenced certain letters
regarding the ARRA's No-Cost EDC with the Navy. He reiterated his point that if we could
return to the original understanding of the housing units that could be built-out per the
documents agreed to by the ARRA and the Navy, perhaps we would not have to pay the
$108,000 million the navy is now requiring. Member Daysog wanted to make sure this point
was captured in this evening's meeting, since it was missed in the Minutes of October 4th.
2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore was not present
at the 10-4-06 ARRA meeting).
2-B. Recommendation to approve consultant agreement with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers for
Pier Condition Analysis at Alameda Point in an amount not to exceed $170,226
Approval of 2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Project Update
Debbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an overview on the Master
Developer RFQ process. At the direction of the Board, the RFQ was issued on October 19th with
a mandatory bidder's conference on Monday, October 30th. There were 20 firms that attended
the bidder's conference. All due diligence documents were provided on a CD and an FTP site
available for all interested firms, and a comprehensive download of the land planning, the
environmental issues, the public trust, summary of term sheet; and an opportunity for those
present to ask questions. One-on-one meetings were also offered with the firms intending to
respond, with nine firms signed up. Responses are due December 4, 2006 and need to be",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,2,"Page 2
accompanied by a $20,000 non-refundable filing fee. The responses received will be evaluated
and brought back to the ARRA should we receive responses with a recommendation to enter into
a 45-day negotiation period.
There was one speaker slip, Andrew Slifka, long-time Alameda resident and also a representative
of the Carpenter's Union in Alameda County, and speaking on behalf of the Construction
Building Trades Council of Alameda County. Mr. Slifka addressed concerns and disappointment
with the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) withdrawal from the project since they had
a Project Labor Agreement with APCP. He urged the Board to look at the same requirements for
any developer that should come forward, because Project Labor agreements bring value to the
community, well-paying jobs with benefits, careers and local work opportunities.
Member Daysog asked if specific questions regarding the financing of the project were outlined
in the RFQ. He commented on the financing/business model associated with revitalizing the
Catellus project and how it was distinct from the business model that was employed for the rest
of Alameda Point. He also discussed incorporating a different business model.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, responded that developers will be asked who their
source of capital is and for a deposit of ""earnest money"" in the amount or $1 million before a
developer is selected. This information will be provided to the Board.
Member Daysog asked if the potential developers understood the amount of property open for
redevelopment. Ms. Potter responded that the $108 million purchase price is based on Phases 1
and Phases 2, which is essentially everything but the Wildlife Refuge and the area south of
Atlantic Ave. and north of the 26-acre park, plus the golf course. David Brandt also clarified that
we were careful to let the developers know that the PDC wasn't an entitlement.
Member Matarrese asked whether a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) was presented to the
bidders as part of the package that APCP (former master developer) put together. Debbie Potter
responded that a PLA was not included in the RFQ and that it was not a requirement of the City
when the first master developer was selected; but that a PLA was voluntarily agreed to by at least
two out of the three finalists during the first master developer selection process.
Member Matarrese requested that bidders be notified that a PLA was part of the original
agreement and that the City does have a policy on prevailing wage. He was concerned that
bidders would try to make their numbers work at the cost of labor. Ms. Potter said that a copy of
the previously agreed-to document will be posted on the RFQ FTP site.
Member deHaan discussed extending the current month-to-month leasing policy to a year-to-
year policy in anticipation that the master developer would start taking down property. David
Brandt acknowledged that the current ARRA direction is that all leases over a year come to the
ARRA, and that potential tenants are told that redevelopment is imminent so long term leases are
not being offered. This is being reevaluated to decide whether to start bringing longer term leases
to the ARRA.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,3,"an agreement (not even actually shoveling dirt or tearing down buildings, etc.) David Brandt
responded that the soonest would be two years. Member Gilmore commented that this increases
the timeframe ""window"" and recommended that when staff returns in January with the study
session of the leases, it might be worthwhile to take a look at not just the 3rd and 4th phases, but
the 1st and 2nd phases, too. Ms. Little clarified that we will be presenting an entire overview of
all the leasing and it can be compared against the PDC.
No action was taken on this item - it was an update and for informational purposes only.
3-B. Alameda Point Environmental Remediation Update: Western Shoreline - IR Sites
1,2, and 32, Soil at IR Site 25 (Coast Guard North Housing), and Compliance with
Marsh Crust Ordinance
Debbie Potter gave an update on the clean-up status of these specific IR sites, as requested at the
October 4 ARRA meeting. Peter Russell, environmental consultant from Russell Resources, was
available to answer questions from the Board as a follow-up to the staff report provided.
Member Matarrese's main concern was the Navy's option to install an engineered cap rather than
a soil cover over landfill waste. Member Matarrese, along with the rest of the Board members,
discussed at length their preferred alternative: having the Navy scoop out the landfill sites and
haul it away.
Debbie Potter discussed the process by which Peter Russell reviews all documents the Navy
promulgates regarding all IR sites. She explained that we comment during the public comment
period, but we do it at a staff level. She agrees with Member Gilmore about the policy-level
decision that we want clean-up to a level that supports the community reuse plan and the PDC,
and that the Navy has committed to clean-up to the reuses that are identified in the PDC. Ms
Potter further explained, and reiterated by Peter Russell, that the ARRA-preferred option to
scoop and haul the landfill is not economically feasible - and an engineered cap is potentially
equally effective. She said that the City advocated the engineered cap since the beginning when
we secured the pilot grant from EPA. Ms. Potter stated that the engineered cap is financially
viable and is scientifically the best solution, a decision staff concluded in consultation with
environmental experts.
Member Matarrese commented that he had issues with the feasibility, that it didn't sound so
daunting at the RAB meetings and that the scoop and haul option is actually feasible. Peter
Russell responded that from a technical standpoint, the scoop and haul option would cost more.
Debbie Potter sought direction from the ARRA as to a response for the public comment period
due to the Navy by Nov. 10th",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,4,"Page 4
Member Matarrese motioned to direct staff to submit a letter to the Navy during the public
comment period to include the ARRA policy aspect and endorse the preferred solution of
scoop and haul, rather than an engineered cap. This motion was seconded by Member
Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Report was covered in discussion of Item 3-B, above.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Mayoral Candidate, Kenneth Kahn, stated that it would be an honor to serve with all of the
members of the Board.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan clarified a comment that was made regarding parolees working at Alameda
Point. He stated that we indeed had parolees working at Alameda Point about 10 years ago
through the Volunteers of America Program, under the control of the Navy. He explained that
we were short of man-power, so we utilized San Quentin inmates that were being transitioned for
landscaping and maintenance.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-12-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 6 2006- 6:15 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 7:00 p.m. to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA staff provided the ARRA with facts and background information regarding disputes
with Trident Management Inc., our port managers. Direction given to staff. Nothing more
to report at this time.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:12
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 6, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-12-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-01-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday. January 2, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 6, 2006.
2-B. Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
2-C. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the
Standards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613.
Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese
and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Tam
was not present at the 12-6-06 ARRA meeting).
Approval of Items 2-B and 2-C was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report as Member Matarrese was unable to attend the last RAB meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed opportunities of the cruise ship industry, citing that the docking of
cruise ships in San Francisco earned $10 million per year. Member deHaan requested that staff",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-01-02,2,"Page 2
investigate this opportunity further, particularly the deep water docks included in the MARAD
lease. Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said the item will be agendized and be brought back to
the ARRA.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-02-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. February 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 2, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 16, 2007.
2-C. Approve Sublease for Tenant at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Selection of a New Master Developer for Alameda Point.
Each of the four master developer teams provided a formal presentation to the Board, in the
following order, chosen at random: Lennar, Suncal, United World Infrastructure, Catellus. After
the formal presentations, there were several public speakers, most of who encouraged the Board
to not make a selection tonight and/or until further information was provided by each of the
teams. At approximately 9:50 p.m., Chair Johnson closed the public comment period and
recessed the meeting for 10 minutes. After the recess, each team approached the podium and
answered questions from the Board. Because of the in-depth nature of the questions, the Board
allowed the teams an opportunity to take the questions as ""homework"" and provide responses at
a later date to be determined.
The Board requested canceling the Regular ARRA meeting of March 7 to consider
scheduling a Special ARRA Meeting on March 21 to continue this item. The Regular
ARRA meeting of April 4 will be the fall-back date in case staff isn't ready by 3/21.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-02-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-02-07,2,"Page 2
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
The RAB meeting on Feb. 1 gave a very interesting presentation on heat removal of volatile
materials in the groundwater and in the soil. Apparently when the electro-heaters are activated,
they use more electricity than the entire rest of the island. It heats the grounds up to 28 feet deep
up to 98 degrees C, which is just under boiling. It takes approximately 1.5 years to cool back
down but is a very effective means of remediation currently in progress at two sites: Bldg 360
(Phase 2 and very contaminated), and Parcel 17 near the seaplane lagoon east. There was also an
update of that area with a data gap sampling near the Hornet soccer field and bay trail. Surface
samples upwind of the Hornet soccer field was highlighted as an area of concern.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Eugenie Young spoke about the cruise ship opportunities at Alameda Point.
At approximately 11:52 p.m., Member Matarrese moved to continue the meeting beyond
midnight, seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5,
Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
Bill Smith spoke about various topics.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m with a moment of silence in honor of Assistant City
Attorney, Byron Toma's father, Takeyuki Toma, aka ""Dick"" Toma, who passed away this
weekend. He served in WWII as part of the 447th Japanese American Regiment.
Respectfully submitted,
Stune Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-02-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-04-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, April 4, 2007- - 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 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 Alameda Point Tenants (ANAM; USS Hornet; Puget
Sound International)
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff presented reports to the ARRA regarding the status of the leases with ANAM, USS Hornet,
and Puget Sound International. Staff solicited and received guidance and direction as to each of
the leases.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Alameda Point Tenants (Edge Innovations)
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff presented a report to the Board and the Board provided direction to Staff.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Initiation of Litigation (Gov. Code section 54956.9(c))
Number of cases: 1
Staff presented recommendation to the Board. Direction given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Strugg
Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 4, 2007",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-04-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday. May 8, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:13 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 2007.
2-B. Review and approve all new and existing subleases at Alameda Point.
2-C. Disposition of Personal Property - Proposed Sale of 45 Foot Yard Tug Boat.
Item 2-C. was withdrawn. Approval of items 2-A and 2-B. was motioned by Member
Matarrese, seconded by Member Tam and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;
Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Consideration of Master Developer Partnership Agreement and Master Developer
Selection.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview on the
status of the of the Master Developer process. She summarized that, on April 4, the ARRA
selected Catellus and Lennar Urban as co-master developers and the Board requested they return
with a Partnership Agreement in 30 days. On May 2nd Catellus and Lennar submitted a non-
binding term sheet that described general provisions that would be included in a yet-to-be-
determined Operating Agreement. The term sheet contemplated a 60-day time frame for
completing the partnership agreement. The evaluation team reviewed the term sheet and
concluded that it raised more questions than answers regarding the potential to reach a
partnership agreement. Missing terms included: the use of third party equity capital, how
additional partners could be added, and what constitutes default under the agreement. Important
items deferred were remedies for breach of contract, dispute resolution, percentage of vertical
development reserved for each partner, etc. Concerns about the ultimate management structure,
cost of third party equity funds vs. self financing and approach to development resulted in the
determination that it was unlikely a partnership agreement can be negotiated that maximizes
timely, cost effective, market driven redevelopment of Alameda Point. Staff recommended that
the Board reconsider the partnership approach and select one master developer. Staff identified
Catellus as the better partner for ARRA as they are self financing and their minimum IRR
requirement is the lowest.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,2,"Page 2
Each of the master developer teams was given 10 minutes to make final comments (in this order:
Catellus, Lennar, and SunCal) before the Board began discussion of the item.
There was one public speaker, Richard Rutter, who discussed his support of staff's
recommendation to select one Master Developer.
The following motions were made:
Member Matarrese motioned to set aside the Partnership Agreement approach and select
just one Master Developer. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 4, Noes - 1 (Gilmore).
Member Matarrese motioned to appoint Catellus as the Master Developer. Motion was
seconded by Chair Johnson and failed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 2 (Matarrese,
Johnson), Noes - 3 (Tam, deHaan, Gilmore).
Member Tam motioned to select SunCal as the Master Developer. Motion was seconded
by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3 (Tam, deHaan,
Gilmore), Noes - 2 (Johnson, Matarrese).
3-B. Approve Draft Comment Letters on Record of Decision for Installation Restoration
Sites 1 and 25 and Authorize Executive Director to Submit Comment Letters to the
Navy.
At the last meeting, Member Matarrese asked staff to prepare comments on the draft ROD for
Sites 1 and 25. Member Matarrese requested that the bottom-line and desires of the ARRA is
stated right up front as an introduction of the letters.
Member Matarrese moved to approve the letters with the edit of repeating the end goal
right at the front of the letter. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report, as Member Matarrese was on vacation and did not attend the meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker, David Howard, who spoke about car-ownership for low income
individuals and families of the affordable housing development at Alameda Point.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,3,"Page 3
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:57 by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Have Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-06-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 6, 2007-6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
2151 Ferry Point, Alameda, CA
Negotiating parties:
City of Alameda and Alameda Naval Air Museum
Under negotiation:
Lease price and terms
ARRA received an oral briefing from its Real Property Negotiator, no action was taken.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal Companies
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding the status of
negotiations with SunCal, and provided negotiating direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 6, 2007",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-06-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-07-18,1,"Approved
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the
City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:53 p.m. with Mayor/Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor/Chair Beverly Johnson
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Marie Gilmore
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Doug deHaan
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Frank Matarrese
Vice Mayor/Boardmember/Commissioner Lena Tam
2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Item 2-A. Recommendation to Approve Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between
ARRA, CIC, City of Alameda (Alameda) and SCC Alameda Point, LLC (SunCal).
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, introduced staff and those involved in the ENA
process: for SunCal was Bill Myers, Amy Freilich, their Counsel, and Steve Elieff, President of
SunCal. For ARRA was Matt Fragner, Real Estate transaction attorney and special Counsel to
the ARRA, and Jim Musbach Financial Consultant from EPS.
Ms. Little gave a powerpoint presentation as an overview of the ENA process, citing the purpose
of the ENA:
-
Define redevelopment and entitlement process for Alameda Point
-
Provide a framework for negotiation of a Disposition and Development Agreement
-
Establish a process for negotiating and executing various other transaction
documents.
Included in the presentation was a summary of the major terms of the ENA, including the length
of term, schedule of performance, initial payment and cost recovery, project labor agreement,
fiscal neutrality, project pro forma, existing city leases, and transfers.
Next steps included:
-
SunCal to provide a pre-development schedule for achieving mandatory and non-
mandatory milestones within 30 days to be updated quarterly
-
SunCal, in conjunction with ARRA staff, to commence project planning and
negotiations
At the conclusion of the presentation, there was concern by all Councilmembers/Boardmembers/
Commissioners of three issues included in the ENA, specifically regarding: 1) the financial
structure and knowledge of who the financial partners are before the DDA process, including the
reference to the 5% contribution relative to the DDA; 2) the liability of the acquisition price of
$108.5M ; and 3) prohibiting transfers during the ENA period.
At 9:50 p.m., Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess so that the SunCal team could discuss these
issues with their principals. The meeting reconvened at 10:22 p.m.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-07-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-07-18,2,"Matt Fragner, with the Councilmember's/Boardmember's/Commissioner's approval, revised and
recited the precise language modifying the three specific issues of the ENA.
ouncilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner deHaan motioned to approve the ENA with
the modifications to the specific sections in the ENA. Motion was seconded by Vice
Mayor/Boardmember/Commissioner Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5 Ayes,
0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.
3.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:27 by Mayor/Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-07-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-08-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 9:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Absent: Boardmember Marie Gilmore
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 18, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority/Community Improvement Commission of July 18, 2007.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o
noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve a 12-Month Contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in the
Amount of $185,000 to Provide Negotiation Support and to Conduct a Fiscal Impact
Analysis for the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Leslie Little gave an overview of the contract and work scope of Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS), explaining that they will assist in developing the business plan and fiscal impact
assessment for Alameda Point. Leslie affirmed Chair Johnson's question about whether the cost
will be reimbursed by SunCal. Member Matarrese clarified that, since EPS is the current
financial consultant under contract with the ARRA, this is an extension of that contract. Chair
Johnson encouraged holding negotiation briefings and sessions in open session, to the extent
possible, in order to keep the public better informed on significant issues. Member Matarrese
agreed and complimented staff, stating that having the last ENA negotiations right in full public
view was successful.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the contract, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), 0 noes, 0
abstentions.
3-B. Authorize Executive Director to Initiate Negotiations for a Short Term Large Parcel
Lease and Caretaker Agreement for the Former Alameda Naval Air Station North Housing
Complex",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-08-07,2,"David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, summarized to the Board that the Navy's caretaker
obligations for the former North Housing Complex will expire in September, and recommends
that the ARRA assume caretaker and maintenance responsibilities. He discussed that it would be
a simple conveyance to gain control of the property so that it can be leased. The property is still
fully operational but deteriorating rapidly. Mr. Brandt discussed the BRAC process: as soon as
the property is declared as surplus, the Local Reuse Authority (ARRA) is responsible for
screening the property. This process could take as long as a year, but there are several options
for conveyance, including a public benefit conveyance for the park, a homeless accommodation
request, or negotiated EDC for cost. Chair Johnson suggested trying to acquire all the property.
Member deHaan questioned the legal ramifications for the conveyance process, and taking over
with a no-cost EDC. Mr. Brandt explained that the Navy's position is that they are not governed
by the old BRAC rules - that they are applying the post-2005 ""No no-cost EDC"" rules. All
Boardmembers agreed that the ARRA should move forward expeditiously in order to preserve
the parkland and prevent further deterioration of the property.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the staff recommendation with further direction
to convey the entire property (Marina Village and North Housing complex) to the City.
The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4
ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o noes, o abstentions.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith spoke about various topics including clean-up problems, liquefaction, and the surplus
housing at former North Housing.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed a side trip tour he had of Fort Ord with Mr. Michael Houlimard, and
compared the Fort Ord redevelopment project with the Alameda Point project. Member deHaan
explained that at Fort Ord, they are only redeveloping 8 acres (out of 28,000 acres) of disturbed
land. The rest became one habitat or recreation areas. He expressed how successful the Fort Ord
project is because they focused on their award-winning Community Reuse Plan, which, to their
benefit, had many special interests, including the University of California and two major retail
operations, one lifestyle and one big box. Even the Army itself wanted to retain some of the
property. Member deHaan further explained that Fort Ord's reuse authority could dissolve in the
next two years, since their cash flow has put them into a positive, quite contrary to where
Alameda Point is. Fort Ord has also begun building a phase of housing units around the existing
golf course (there will be 12,000 residential units total); there is one hotel and another bid for a
Ritz Carlton. Member deHaan attributes the success of the Fort Ord project to their focus on the
community reuse plan, their expedient manner and that they did not veer from that plan.
Member Matarrese suggested agendizing a report of the Fort Ord project as an update and called
to move the agenda.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:34 by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The meeting convened at 9:34 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 7, 2007.
2-B. Approve Two-Year Sublease for Architectural Glass & Aluminum at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Proposed Sale and Disposition of Surplus Property at Alameda Point, Itemized
as Five Rapid Electric Rectifiers, One Industrial Oven, Two Abrasive Blasters, and One
Abar Ipson IVD Machine, for a Total Amount of $84,000 in Revenue to the ARRA.
2-D. Approval to Provide Building 24 for No Cost for Alameda Boys & Girls Club Fundraiser.
Member deHaan pulled Item 2-D. Approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar was
motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the
following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions. Member Gilmore abstained from Item
2-A (Aug. 7 Minutes), as she was absent from that meeting.
Member deHaan asked why Item 2-D was brought before the ARRA on short notice. Debbie
Potter, Base Reuse & Community Development Manager, explained that the ARRA Board meets
once a month, and often times requests come through, particularly from non-profits or small
businesses that might not be familiar with the steps and processes necessary to approve their
requests. Their lack of familiarity that any requests would have to come to the board is the
reason for the short notice, and as soon as the request was received, it was placed on the agenda.
Ms. Potter further explained that it is not unusual to take and approve requests for fee-waivers
from non-profits; but in the past, this was done administratively, and just more recently, the
policy was to bring these requests to the ARRA.
Member deHaan motioned to approve Item 2-D, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by
the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Master Project Schedule Prepared by SCC
Alameda Point LLC",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,2,"Debbie Potter summarized the Alameda Point project to date and introduced Pat Keliher,
SunCal's Project Manager, to present the Master Project Schedule. The ENA calls for the master
plan to be prepared initially, and updated on a quarterly basis and presented to the ARRA. The
first update of the Master Schedule will be presented in the Dec. - Jan. timeframe.
Pat Keliher walked through highlights of the Project Master Schedule and explained that the
schedule was put together in a logical manner, first with the public planning process, which
clearly is important to set the stage for a final development plan. The first community meeting
will be scheduled very soon, and consist of land, site, design constraints and charettes. The
second stage of public process includes returning back to the public to present a development
concept. Mr. Keliher emphasized how critical it is to remain consistent and continue the public
process throughout the project timeline. Next critical item on the schedule is the traffic, location,
and infrastructure impacts of the VA issue and scope of their project. Mr. Keliher stated that
SunCal began early on working together with the VA.
The next key phase is the Planning and Entitlement phase where the development concept,
public amenities, adaptive reuse, and historic district issues are refined. Mr. Keliher explained
that SunCal has met with members of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS),
and with Chris Buckley and Richard Rutter, to evaluate buildings and uses in the historic district.
SunCal's next key item on the schedule is the submittal of the Entitlement Application in March
2008. Mr. Keliher did not go into detail with the balance of schedule which includes the DA,
DDA, CAA, Business Plan, MOA, Tidelands Trust Agreement, etc. He further explained that the
NEPA & CEQA processes can't start until project description is in place. He expressed how
critical the next three to six months are and that SunCal is committed to meeting the milestones.
Member Matarrese focused on the zoning issue and asked when Zoning will be adopted. He
requested that the Zoning is put under the control of the City and is locked so that the City
protects itself. Debbie Potter explained that the city anticipates the entitlement package
(Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment,
Zoning amendment, and Master Plan) will all come together as one package, and, pursuant to the
ENA allows this in July 2009. One of the mandatory milestones is the submittal of an initial
entitlement package by May 2008, which will trigger the CEQA process. David Brandt, Deputy
Executive Director, explained that the milestone is not an actual exchange, just a framework
agreement of how we'll proceed. Chair Johnson requested it is made clear that the milestone is a
framework. Mr. Brandt further explained that once the CEQA process is complete, the City
Council can then adopt Zoning, but legally it cannot be done without an environmental review
process. Member Matarrese expressed concern about zoning changes and that any changes have
to go thru the City so that it is not left open if the Navy decides to change the rules. Debbie
Potter explained that the intent is to execute all required documents simultaneously such that we
protect our existing position as our role as the trustee. Ms. Potter assured that she will discuss
with the Planning dept. about whether or not the existing EIR done for the General Plan
Amendment is sufficient, or whether we will have to undertake additional environmental review.
An update on this issue will be reported at the Oct. ARRA meeting.
Member deHaan asked if the Navy will be able to meet the timeline, and if not, what the
consequences are. David Brandt stated that we cannot guarantee that the Navy will perform and
we cannot control third party delay. Debbie Potter stated that we should be hearing from the
Navy about the schedule in the next day or so.
Member Gilmore commented that our sense of urgency does not match the Navy's and that they
need to come to the realization that time is money for everyone involved. The costs of",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,3,"construction, infrastructure, etc. makes the project difficult, and the factors that affect our
developer, and would affect any developer, affects the Navy as well.
Pat Keliher stated that SunCal has a tactical strategy to deal with the Navy - that they have a
streamlined process of sharing technical studies and other documents that underpin the CEQA &
NEPA processes; but that there are still a lot of unknowns, including whether there will be
funding for clean-up. Chair Johnson compared the Oaknoll site to Alameda, that Oaknoll was a
clean site without Tidelands Trust issues. Mr. Keliher reiterated SunCal's commitment to the
challenging, but necessary task, stating that SunCal would work with the City of Alameda, their
consultants and lobbyists, to deal with the changing climate ahead that may affect things moving
forward.
The Board thanked Mr. Keliher and SunCal for presenting the Master Project Schedule and
expressed it was a job well done.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Vice Chair Tam presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Chair Johnson arrived at 7:52 p.m. (during item 3-B).
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 4, 2007.
2-B. Approve Three-Year Sublease for Sustainable Technologies at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Waiver of License Fee for Alameda Unified School District Student Activities.
2-D. Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident
Management, Inc. to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes, o noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation by Friends of the Wildlife Refuge - An Update of Their Activities at
Alameda Point.
A power point presentation was made by Leora Feeney, Chair of FAWR, and Eli Saddler,
Conservation Director for Golden Gate Audubon, to update the Board and community on the
resources at the Alameda proposed Wildlife Refuge to ensure the resources are protected while
transfer negotiations continue. Eli Saddler thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the
update and encouraged them to do whatever possible to protect the resource. He expressed
concern about the current plans that have been proposed that are within the area that was
considered in the Biological Opinion. They want to continue to work cooperatively with the VA
to protect the resource and honor the veterans at the same time.
Member deHaan commented on how nice it is to look at the maturity of the site, referring to the
photos included in the presentation. He asked if the resources, the ponds and wildlife area, are
getting to a better state. Ms. Feeney replied that the ponds are wonderful, but that Alameda Point
and the breakwater is vulnerable. She discussed the increase in the Pelican numbers, and the use
of the willows by migratory birds, including a hawk, one winter. Ms. Feeney also mentioned
how far the recognition of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge stretches, explaining that two college
students chose the Refuge site for their graduate work, one from Los Angeles, and the other from",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,2,"Toronto, Canada. Also, the first magazine issued by the National Wildlife Refuge Association
included an segment on Alameda and asked the FAWR to be an affiliate of theirs.
Member deHaan asked how successful the mating pairs have been up to this point. Ms. Feeney
summarized the progress of the lease tern colony, explaining that Alameda has the sixth largest
colony in the world, but that we are isolated from the other colonies (most in Southern Ca).
Member Matarrese really enjoyed the pictures included in the presentation and appreciates the
fragility of the ecosystem of the site. He discussed another upcoming item on the Agenda, Site
1, an uncharacterized waste pit which is adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge, and the importance of
addressing the clean-up issues and how it relates to the water-borne life of the refuge. Mr.
Saddler added that once construction begins at Alameda Point, it would inevitably impact how
the clean-up is managed.
Vice Chair Tam asked if they have seen some of the latest conceptual plans from the VA. Mr.
Saddler said that he and Ms. Feeney met with the VA and were able to see three versions of
proposed plans. They were concerned that the new concepts proposes the area between the
proposed Golf course and the refuge site as a buffer zone, but also expressed their desire to stay
engaged with the VA and keep things in perspective as to what's best for Alameda, what's best
for the Veterans and what's best for the wildlife. Member Matarrese clarified that the VA is a
fed-to-fed transfer, and not the Alameda development.
Member deHaan recommended the Board receive periodic updates of the VA's proposals and
requested a briefing. Member Matarrese agreed and asked whether the updates can be obtained
officially. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that there is no official proposal
available yet from the VA. Member Matarrese requested that when there is an official proposal,
he would like the Board to see it. The Board agreed.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - oral report
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, reported that the VA is
currently engaged in informal Section 7 consultations with the USF&W and have a potential site
plan, but there are no additional details beyond that.
Member deHaan asked what role the ARRA would have, since the property would be a fed-to-
fed transfer. Ms. Potter explained that it has been properly characterized as a fed-to-fed transfer,
and, as such, the VA would work directly with the Navy on the conveyance of the property. This
opportunity is one that the VA would be interested in exploring because the property would be
conveyed to them for free; different than the conveyance we're involved in for the remainder of
the property. ARRA and staff would be involved at an informal level, but because the
development is adjacent, we have interest in some issues like the submerged lands adjacent to
dry lands. Ms Potter stated that staff would continue to consult and work with the VA, the
USF&W, and the Navy, but key issues are hammered out at the federal level.
Member deHaan discussed his understanding that the USF&W made a claim to property, said
that they would be the governing body and provide financially, but they could not fulfill their
commitment and this is why the Navy is looking for a different avenue. Ms. Potter explained
that, in the USF&W's own words, ""the status of refuge is at an impasse""; that they are unable to
reconcile their issues with the Navy regarding a fed-to-fed transfer, and that their key concern is
future liability regarding environmental cleanup. They have not perfected the transfer
arrangement, so the Navy has been in discussions with the VA in lieu of USF&W. Because
there are endangered species on the property, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,3,"consultation to make sure that whatever the VA does, they cannot harm the endangered species.
Ms. Potter clarified that the USF&W are not pursuing ownership of the property at this time and
that if the Navy goes forward with the property transfer to the VA, the Navy will retain clean-up
obligations for the property.
Vice Chair Tam questioned what SunCal's follow-up with the VA has been to this point
regarding the site, if their dialogue with the VA includes potential alternative sites. Ms Potter
responded that SunCal has had one additional follow-up meeting with the VA and that SunCal is
aware of their need ultimately, and that this issue is a key item on SunCal's Project Master
Schedule.
It is noted that Chair Johnson arrived at this point in the discussion (7:52 p.m.).
Ms. Potter gave her update on SunCal, including that the first two community meetings have
been scheduled, the first on 10/24 at Mastick Senior Center. The agenda for this meeting
includes introduction of SunCal and their partners to the community, framing the project and
their approach to the project, and site constraints. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled on
12/12 at the O'club to solicit feedback from community regarding the range of development
scenarios, and their key focus to continue surveying property and preparing to do sampling - the
technical work to support the land-planning effort.
Member Matarrese asked if we're on track with zoning issues. Ms. Potter explained that she has
prepared an off-agenda report discussing that the status of the public trust designation protects us
more than locking in zoning, and recommends that staff not do anything ahead of the entitlement
process. FM requested that this item be agendized.
Chair Johnson asked if the mortgage crisis is a risk to SunCal. Ms. Potter said that SunCal has
reassured they are not impacted by that crisis. Chair Johnson wants to be kept updated of
SunCal's activities regarding the project.
This report was for information only. No motion or action was required.
3-C. Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation
Restoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area).
Ms. Potter summarized a letter sent to the EPA requesting additional investigative work be done
at IR Site 1. She explained that trenching activities are concluded at the site and key concerns
identified: no intact drums were found, but the waste had low-level radioactivity. The cost of
digging up and hauling off the landfill is very expensive so staff's recommendation is to take the
Navy's approach outlined in their draft ROD to cap the landfill.
Member Matarrese had deep concerns about the radioactive and hazardous waste and
groundwater migration of the contaminants out of the landfill. Dr. Peter Russell addressed the
concerns and explained that the landfill was closed and no waste put in for 50 years, with a good
deal of monitoring and investigation, it appears not to be any migration of contents. Dr. Russell
further explained that 11 trenches were dug and there were no drums or containers whatsoever,
except for one broken which was consistent with the Navy's supposition that what drums were
placed in there were crushed. It is unlikely that there are many, if any, drums. Another issue
was the volume of waste - the Navy over-estimated by a factor of two or three, so accordingly,
they inflated the cost by two or three. Their feasibility study did not consider radioactivity in
landfill, and now that there is, we do not have an argument that the cost for the removal is at the
Navy's estimate.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,4,"Member Matarrese motioned to send a letter that is policy in nature requesting that the
Navy excavate and remove the contents of the radioactive contaminated landfill, and
dispense with institutional controls on surrounding properties that are deemed to be
cleaned.
The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, o noes, and 0 abstentions.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
The RAB met regularly and again on Sept. 28th to discuss six alternatives for the draft feasibility
study for IR Site 32. Their recommendation endorses a chemical oxidation and institutional
controls for that site to alleviate groundwater contaminations.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese was contacted by a member of boating industry regarding development in
Jack London Square that will displace their annual boat show in 2009. The representatives are
interested in another venue for the boat show and are looking at Alameda Point. Member
Matarrese expressed that this would be a great thing to pursue a boat show of that magnitude,
and that it would be an economic boom for our city. He requested a report when/if this can be
done.
Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said that ARRA staff has been in discussions with the
representatives of the boat show and will update the Board with information.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Have Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 3, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of October 16, 2007.
2-C. Approve a Five-Year Sublease with the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) at Alameda
Point.
2-D. Approve a Ground Lease at No Cost for Kids Chalk Art Project.
2-E. Approve General Release and Compromise Agreement with The Reuse People of America,
Inc.
Member deHaan pulled Item 2-B. (Oct. 16 Minutes) for discussion. The balance of the
Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member
Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, o abstentions.
Item 2-B: Member deHaan pulled this item because he wanted to clarify the action that occurred
at the Special Meeting of Oct. 16th. He specifically addressed the item discussed at this meeting,
Item 3-A. Establish an Alameda Point Advisory Task Force. The discussion that he understood
was that one member from each of the boards and commissions plus the Housing Commission
would be selected and that the individuals would report back to their commissions and boards.
At the recommendation of the Executive Director, Debra Kurita, Member Gilmore suggested we
hold approval of Item 2-B until Item 3-C (AP Advisory Task Force: Clarification of Roles and
Responsibilities) is discussed. Member deHaan said since he placed Item 3-C on the agenda, he
would pull it if Item 2-B is clarified.
Chair Johnson stated that 3-C should not be pulled and should be discussed because more
direction needs to be provided. Member Matarrese agreed with member deHaan to correct the
minutes first, and agreed with Chair Johnson to keep Item 3-C on the agenda for discussion.
Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, further clarified that in addition to the Housing
Commission member, that there would be a representative from the Climate Protection Task
Force as well. All Board members agreed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,2,"Chair Johnson recommended keeping Item 3-C on the agenda, affirmed by staff that it would be
helpful for further discussion.
Vice Chair Tam requested a correction of the 10/16 minutes to reflect that it was Member
Matarrese who seconded the motion, and not her.
Member Gilmore motioned for approval of Item 2-B with the following corrections: to
include full complement of the Boards and Commissions with one member representing his
or her Board/Commission's position and reporting back to that board or commission, and
this includes the Climate Protection Task Force and Housing Commission representatives;
and to reflect that Member Matarrese seconded the motion, and not Vice Chair Tam. The
motion was seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
There were two speakers on Item 2-D (Kids Chalk Art Project), Mark Wagner, who thanked the
Board for waiving the fee for the use of Alameda Point for the project; and Trish Spencer,
President of the Alameda PTA Council, who gave a brief explanation of the project, which
spotlights art and brings art to the students and families of Alameda schools. They plan to draw
the largest chalk project in the world.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Proclamation for Ken Hansen, Community Co-Chair of the FISCA RAB.
Chair Johnson proclaimed Nov. 7, 2007 as Ken Hansen Day in the City of Alameda, and
presented the Proclamation to Mr. Hansen. Mr. Jim Sweeney also presented Mr. Hansen with a
Letter of Appreciation from the US Navy, signed by Laura Duchnak, Director of the BRAC
Program Office. Mr. Mike Quillen of ERM presented a letter of appreciation and recognition to
the ARRA Board to honor Mr. Hansen for his contribution and achievements to the ARRA and
the City of Alameda.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief project update:
SunCal held its first community meeting on October 24th. There were over 200 members of the
community in attendance. SunCal introduced their team and gave a presentation which focused
on various constraints and work they have done so far. There were various technical consultants
on hand, and following the formal remarks, there was opportunity for the community to talk on a
one-on-one basis with the consultants. SunCal is preparing for a briefing with the Navy on 11/15
regarding their progress to date. The next meeting is scheduled on 12/13 at the O'Club at 6:30
p.m.
At the 10/16 Special ARRA meeting, there was a request that staff prepare a stakeholder process
for involving the folks that have special interest in Alameda Point. An off-agenda regarding this
item was distributed end of last week.
Chair Johnson asked if we are meeting the benchmarks in the process and keeping the timeline.
Ms Potter replied that so far, yes, and that SunCal has two mandatory milestones on the near
horizon, the first is March '08 when they have to submit a development concept, along with
infrastructure plan and business plan; and the next milestone is May '08 where they are required
to submit their draft master plan application.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,3,"from the Planning Dept.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, wanted clarification on the task force member role
to represent their board or commission.
Member Matarrese discussed that the memo distributed by Andrew Thomas regarding the roles
and responsibilities accurately captured the intent and purpose - which was to increase the
familiarity with all the boards and commissions of the plan when it's finished, so they are not
seeing it for the first time. The task force is responsible for two things: 1) report back, and 2)
advise SunCal on positions their boards and commissions have taken. It is a very clean and
efficient way of getting to the point of having the boards and commissions versed in the plan as it
is presented to them.
Vice Chair Tam expressed her concerns about the members of the task force being asked to
refrain from speaking at the Oct. 24th meeting until their roles and responsibilities were clarified.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,4,"She explained that it is not her view that we should deprive the advisory boardmembers of their
constitutional right to speak out or constrain them from sharing their views and experience. We
chose these people because of their expertise and their broad experience in Alameda and outside
- and that these boards and commissions have chosen them to help lead the discussion. It's
appropriate for them, once they're on the advisory task force, to interact productively with
SunCal to ask questions, and not simply be a human tape recorder.
Member Matarrese stated that his explanation of the roles of the task force members does not
preclude them from asking questions. Member deHaan added that the liaison to SunCal should
be staff, and not the task force member.
Andrew Thomas clarified that the advisory task force is an ad-hoc group, not a separate formal
commission. The task force meetings are the public workshop meetings - everything is publicly
noticed, there are no plans to hold ""task force"" meetings separate from the workshops.
Speaker, Bill Smith, spoke about various topics.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese was not able to attend the last RAB meeting and did not have a report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan requested further discussion on the Coast Guard Housing Surplus process be
placed on the next Regular ARRA agenda.
Member Matarrese also requested a report on all the fields at Coast Guard Housing. Deputy
Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that an off-agenda is in preparation regarding this issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
James Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:30 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 November 7, 2007.
Member Gilmore clarified that the following correction should be made in the minutes
regarding Item 3-C. Alameda Point Advisory Task Force: that the Board and Commission
representatives would not only convey their Board or Commission's position to SunCal at
the public meetings, but also, they could speak for themselves if they made it clear that they
were speaking for themselves and not on behalf of their Board or Commission. Member
Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar with the clarification made by
Member Gilmore, seconded by member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation by the Veterans Affairs on the VA Project Development Plans at
Alameda Point.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Claude
Hutchison, Director of Asset Enterprise Management, and Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset Manager,
of the VA who made a powerpoint presentation.
Mr. Hutchison gave a summary profile of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. The VA is the second
largest agency within the Federal system, second only to the Department of Defense (DOD).
They are essentially the alumni association for the DOD and serve the needs and requirements of
24 million living Americans who served our country. They have an annual budget projected to
be $84 billion. There are three major areas of responsibilities and activities: 1) Veterans Health
Administration - to serve the medical needs and requirements of those enrolled in the VA
system. Currently 8 million enrollees, with 155 acute care hospitals around the country and 900
outpatient clinics, 2) Veterans Benefit Administration - financial services ranging from real
estate loans to insurance and educational requirements, and 3) National Cemetery Administration
- runs 125 national shrines as final internment for Veterans.
Their hope is to place a combination of all three at Alameda Point - a significant, multi-purpose
outpatient clinic, offices for the Veterans Benefit Administration, and an above-ground
columbarium.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,2,"The entire land mass that the VA hopes to have transferred to them by the Navy is approximately
597 acres. They envision developing about 113 acres concentrated in the north east area of the
property. Mr. Hutchison further explained that the VA is still in negotiations with the USF&W
because of the Lease Tern and California Brown Pelican whose habitat is within the area they
hope to control.
Mr. Jaynes concluded the presentation with an overview of the property area, stating that
Alameda Point is strategically located to serve the Veterans of the greater Bay Area, and in
addition, it is ideally and centrally located to serve the Veterans of northern Alameda County.
He indicated on the map which area was the federal-to-federal parcel at the far west end of
Alameda Point. It primarily consists of what was the airfield and landfill for NAS. The parcel
does not include the Northwest Territories, which is still going to the City of Alameda. It also
does not include any submerged lands. The 579-acre parcel runs from the west side of hangar
row all the way down to the bay, and follows the perimeter shoreline all the way around the tip.
When it gets to the Northwest Territories, it comes back down to hangar row.
Mr. Jaynes presented the VA's site development plan which they have been working on for 18
months. They plan to only develop 113 acres, and the remaining 466 acres will be left
undeveloped. The VA's planned development is a circumference of about 1900 feet from the
Lease Tern colony, based on the closest structure on hangar row, to assure the protection of the
Lease Tern and the Brown Pelican and so the VA and these endangered species can co-exist on
the site.
Their plans include an outpatient clinic on the far east end which would replace the two facilities
currently in Oakland. The clinic will be approximately 80-90,000 sq. ft. and be a full-service
ambulatory care clinic which will not have any beds. The VA would like to develop an above-
ground cemetery on the 50+ acres on the far west end of the parcel. There are approximately
390,000 Veterans in the greater Bay Area that would use the cemetery services, and for the
clinic, they envision that it would serve approximately 7,000 of the 40,000 northern Alameda
County Veterans. Also included in the clinic would be a small clinic that is run by the Air Force
(David Grant Medical Center) that would treat active duty and active duty dependents in the Bay
Area. The third development plan includes land reserved for ""enhanced use"", a public-private
partnership where a developer comes in and builds a facility on under-utilized VA land. The VA
was envisioning as their enhanced use partner a civilian in-patient hospital, which they believe is
a compatible need with their outpatient clinic.
Chair Johnson asked how many in-patient hospital beds the VA would anticipate be used by
Veterans. Mr. Jaynes replied that approximately 10 - 20 would be used for Veterans. Member
Matarrese mentioned that there is already a hospital here in Alameda that can be partnered with
the VA. Mr. Jaynes explained that the plans for the civilian hospital are still conceptual. The
enhanced use plans also include two structures for medical office buildings, which would house
civilian doctors and administration. Also included is a small nature center which the VA would
build to house fish and wildlife services and employees on the site to work with the Lease Terns,
as well as EBRPD rangers if an agreement can be worked out with them. The VA would also
build a bay trail on the property, limited to the far west side of the parcel in order to protect the
endangered species.
Mr. Jaynes presented the VA's timeline for development. They have been in consultation with
USF&W for almost two years, and are currently in negotiations with the Navy to develop an
MOU which will lay out the transfer terms. It is the VA and Navy's plan that the final transfer,
including the transfer documents, will be complete by Fall of 2008. In addition, the VA is
currently conducting a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment
for transfer, and a biological assessment. They have plans to do a NEPA environmental impact
study which is funded and ready to go.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,3,"Mr. Jaynes explained the VA's two major construction projects, one for the clinic, one for the
cemetery. Both projects are congressionally authorized and appropriated, if approved for the
budget, design will begin on the clinic in 2010, with construction completed by spring/summer
2012. The columbarium is on the same timeline, but could be phased and opened sooner. The
enhanced use lease is in the concept application process and will go to the Secretary of the VA in
the spring, and if approved, the enhanced use process will begin in late spring and work toward
having a partner and open in 2012.
Member Tam thanked Mr. Jaynes and Mr. Hutchison for the presentation and had some
questions: 1) on the discussions the VA has had with the Navy regarding environmental clean-up
costs, 2) has there been progress in the VA's coordination with SunCal, and 3) the VA's role and
relationship with the Alameda Healthcare District.
Mr. Hutchison explained that the VA has had ongoing dialogue with the Alameda District
hospital and will be meeting with the new CEO tomorrow morning (Dec. 6) to continue that
dialogue and they are very interested in maintaining that relationship with the Alameda
Healthcare District. He further explained that the VA has issued an RFP for outpatient services,
and that the Alameda Healthcare District has responded. A final determination has not yet been
made.
As a response to Member Tam's first question about the clean-up costs, Mr. Hutchison discussed
that the Navy is responsible for clean-up. The VA's MOU with the Navy will set forth the terms
and conditions that outline the requirements of the Navy to bring it up to appropriate commercial
standards. The VA does not want to take on liability for contamination over which they had no
control. The inter-agency transfer will set forth clearly the Navy's requirements with no dispute
between the VA and the Navy as to those requirements. He emphasized that the VA has a
significant due diligence process.
Member Tam mentioned that since the VA is the alumni association to the Navy, that they may
have a stronger tie to them than the ARRA does. Mr. Hutchison explained that the Navy is well
aware of their obligation and is prepared to live up to it.
Mr. Jaynes discussed the coordination efforts with SunCal, stating that most of their
communication with SunCal since their last meeting with them has been through Debbie Potter.
He said that he has been playing phone-tag with the project manager for SunCal, Pat Keliher, but
will continue to strive to communicate with them to make sure their plans are in coordination
with the ARRA's. Mr. Hutchison thanked Member Tam for being the catalyst to bringing
SunCal and the VA together in a joint cooperation going forward.
Chair Johnson wanted to clarify whether residential units were still part of the VA's development
plan. Mr. Hutchison confirmed that residential units were never part of their plan. Member
deHaan discussed his concerns about the budget appropriations and the VA's cost for their
development plans. Mr. Hutchison stated that the budget approval cycle was FY '10 and the
dollar amount for the hospital is in the $50M range, and considerably less for the columbarium.
They are confident that their proposal will be well received by congress and the Dept. of
Veteran's Affairs. Member deHaan also asked about the status of their coordination efforts with
SunCal. Mr. Hutchison reaffirmed what Mr. Jaynes had said about their intent to maintain
dialogue with SunCal.
Chair Johnson called the speakers, first Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the
Lease Terns and transportation issues. The next speaker, Mark Chandler, Commissioner of the
Alameda County Veterans Affairs Commission, spoke in support of the VA's plan to develop the
outpatient clinic at Alameda Point. He discussed the status quo of Veterans having to travel to
Martinez, Travis AFB, and Mare Island for healthcare.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,4,"Another speaker, Leora Feeney, Boardmember of the Golden Gate Audubon Society and Friends
of the Alameda Wildlife (FAWR), stated her appreciation for the cordiality given by the VA
regarding their proposal. She stated that all of them support Veterans in a huge way, and also
support wildlife and open space and opportunities for our children to experience nature. Ms.
Feeney discussed her concerns on specific issues of the VA presentation, mainly the ""circle""
concept (1900 feet distance from the nearest hangar). She's concerned that any development that
places a barrier between the Lease Tern colony and the water would present a problem, as the
Lease Terns do not fly over buildings. They would not be able to get to the water to forage. Ms.
Feeney's other strong objection is the VA's unwillingness to accept the water around the refuge,
together with the land, including the island breakwater where the brown pelicans roost. If the VA
accepts the land and develops that northern portion of it, it seems reasonable, but there is a need
to protect the foraging waters of the Lease Terns and the island breakwater for those endangered
species. She emphasized the need for accountability to protect these things, and stated that if the
USF&W does not have it, nor the VA, she's concerned about who will accept the responsibility.
Chair Johnson asked the VA what their intention is with regard to Ms. Feeney's concerns about
the water. Mr. Hutchison stated that it is envisioned that the water area would go to the master
developer, SunCal, and that the VA has never coveted that water. Deputy Executive Director,
David Brandt, corrected Mr. Hutchison's statement by explaining that the area is Tidelands
property, so it would be the ARRA or the City that would hold title to the property, and not
SunCal.
The next speaker was Eli Saddler, Conservation Director for the Golden Gate Audubon Society.
He discussed further the concerns of Ms. Feeney, and agreed that they support the VA. He
would like them to go forward with their development plans, but just not at the Alameda Point
site. One of their primary concerns is that the VA's plan contradicts the existing biological
opinion that was developed when USF&W originally requested the property as a refuge. There
was a minimum acreage required for the California Lease Tern which was the entire area
sectioned off, not including the northern-most portion, which was going to the City and was to be
developed as a buffer zone. The VA's plans would be inside the buffer zone of the area that has
already been designated as the critical habitat for the species. They do not think that it is
biologically defensible to draw a circle of 1900 feet around the colony, it is unrealistic to think
that the birds will obey and stay in that circle. They use the whole area, including areas where
the VA has already planned to put their hospital. Mr. Saddler also further discussed his concern
about the water area, which was also included in the original biological opinion, which stated
that the area to the south was needed for foraging for both species. He emphasized their concern
about whether the VA's plan was biologically feasible without very serious mitigation that
would have to be done ahead of any construction, mitigation meaning having an alternative site
for the Lease Terns to go to, and there was no discussion of this mitigation. It is their
understanding that the USF&W would have some kind of requirement that would include
mitigation. The problem is, however, that there really is no other location for the Lease Terns to
go. The VA plans could potentially jeopardize Alameda's very significant Lease Tern colony.
Mr. Saddler also discussed his concerns about the VA's NEPA process and whether it is legally
defensible. The transfer of the parcel is for a purpose, and if there is a new biological opinion
that contradicts a pre-existing one, this places the VA's development plans on shaky ground,
legally.
Chair Johnson thanked all the speakers and Mr. Hutchison for coming in from Washington, DC
to make the VA's presentation. Member deHaan asked whether the VA looked at other
opportunities at Alameda Point. Mr. Hutchison clarified that their discussions have been with
the Navy, and that the Navy came to them, unable to agree to terms with the USF&W and was
going to dispose of the property, and asked whether the VA had an interest in taking it over.
Their relationship to the parcel is a direct result of the Navy soliciting their interest. Mr. Jaynes
added that the VA had looked at the older Coast Guard Housing property, but felt that it wasn't
large enough to satisfy the VA's needs for a medical clinic as well as a columbarium.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,5,"Member Matarrese expressed his appreciation for the presentation as it quelled various rumors
about the VA's interest in the property. It's good for the ARRA and for the public to hear a
presentation live from officials of the VA. Member Matarrese asked if they would take back
with them a couple considerations: 1) that he does not share their optimism regarding the Navy's
commitment to do clean-up. He asked that they have the same demands as the ARRA does
regarding clean-up, and to accept the land clean, especially if it would be the final resting place
for our Veterans, and 2) explore to the maximum the opportunity to work with the Alameda
Healthcare District. A competing private hospital would be to the detriment of the hospital that
Alameda taxpayers support.
Member deHaan requested that the Alameda Healthcare District make a presentation to the
ARRA regarding their interest in the VA project. Chair Johnson stated that they will invite the
Alameda Healthcare District to make a presentation to the ARRA when they are ready to do so.
3-B. Update on the Former Coast Guard Housing Property.
Debbie Potter gave an update on the North Housing parcel, specifically on the temporary license
agreement/lease for estuary park, the exploration of a possible short-term leasing program, and
the screening process underway for the homeless accommodation and public benefit conveyance.
Staff has been working with the Navy on the short-term lease for estuary park, some sticking
points involve environmental remediation, but a short term lease agreement is planned to be
brought back to the ARRA in January '08. Staff determined that it was not feasible to have a
short-term leasing program for the surplus units. Regarding the screening process, on Nov. 5,
the Navy published their notice of surplus property in the Federal register, which triggered the
ARRA's obligation to notify the public that the property is available for screening and we are
currently in the middle of the process. There is a public information workshop scheduled for
tomorrow (Dec. 6) to brief interested parties on the screening process, and to take them on a tour
of the property. Notices of Interest (NOI) for both the homeless accommodation and the public
benefit conveyance will be due to the City on February 29, 2008. Those notices will be
evaluated working with HUD and the Navy, and ultimately we will go through a public process
of amending the Community Reuse Plan to reflect the accommodations and public benefit
conveyances that may result from this process.
3-C. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.
Debbie Potter gave an update on the Alameda Point project. A meeting with the Navy originally
scheduled to take place in November was rescheduled to December 12th The next SunCal
community meeting is scheduled on December 13th at the O'Club at 6:30 p.m, with another
public meeting scheduled on January 30, 2008.
There was one speaker, Bill Smith.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese will attend the meeting tomorrow (12/6) and will have a report in January.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,6,"6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-01-02,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:33 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 December 5, 2007.
2-B. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Agreement with Russell Resources for
Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point for 12 Months in an Amount not to
exceed $117,500.
2-C. Approve Sublease for American Bus Repair, LLC at Alameda Point.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Quarterly Update of Project Master
Schedule Prepared by SCC Alameda Point LLC.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a quick update of
Alameda Point activities. On 12/12, SunCal met with the Navy to discuss their due diligence and
progress on the project. On 12/13, SunCal conducted their second community meeting with over
200 community residents and business people in attendance. The community members
participated in small workgroups and identified pros and cons of two broadly defined concepts
for Alameda Point. SunCal will take the information and feedback from this meeting to put to
use for the next community meeting. Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Project
Manager for the Alameda Point Project, to give the first quarterly update of the Project Master
Schedule.
Mr. Keliher summarized past public meetings, explaining that the public would like more
specific feedback on multiple planning concepts. SunCal has aggregated most of the information
and feedback and will present this to staff. To update the master schedule -- originally, SunCal's
pretense was that they would move forward with the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC),
but over the course of the last few months, due to constraints, the PDC is not feasible. SunCal
has communicated this to the Navy, to the public, and to staff, and the Project Master Schedule
has been updated. Most of schedule triggers project description, which is still in process and will
take several more months, but does not affect the two-year ENA period. Mr. Keliher discussed
that the City hired an independent peer review team to evaluate SunCal's results and this peer",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-01-02.pdf
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
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-09-07,2,"November. Regarding the larger redevelopment of Alameda Point, there are ongoing
negotiations with the Navy re: conveyance of property, continuing conversation with State
Lands re: Tidelands Trust Exchange. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point will
come back to the ARRA with updates in the next couple of months.
Member deHaan asked to confirm the LBNL timeline. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point explained that the UC Regents meets every two months, if the timeline were to slip, or if they
were not ready to make a selection in November, the issue will slip to the next meeting in January.
The City Manager informed the Board that staff has informally heard that the selection may indeed
slip to January, but reassured the Board that staff is completely ready and has not asked for any
extension as others have. Alameda is on time, on budget, and will be ready for a November
meeting if it happens. Staff is urging a prompt decision.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed that the Associated Community Action Plan (ACAP) will have their last
meeting next week. He recommends that community members view their audit, which was
released to the public.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-10-05,1,"80
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, Ocotber 5, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:07 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
Chair Gilmore requested that the Pledge of Allegiance be added to the ARRA agenda.
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
(*11-069) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular ARRA Meetings of September 7, 2011.
Member deHaan 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.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-070) Approve Term Sheet between United States Navy and the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority for No-Cost Conveyance of Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point summarized the Term Sheet.
Pursue no-cost
conveyance for LBNL, Navy Comprehensive conveyance strategy for entire base - discussed the
major terms. Next steps to negotiate amendment to existing economic development conveyance
memorandum of agreement bring back to ARRA for approval.
The Acting City Attorney asked the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point to explain the
Environmental Review of the term sheet. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point explained
that Alameda Point does not constitute a project under CEQA, therefore the Board is able to
approve the term sheet without conducting additional environmental review.
Speaker: Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES, congratulated staff on a job well done after 14 years. Ms.
Lichtenstein discussed hope for the housing plan to move ahead, and hopefully with LBNL at the
Point.
Regarding the enforcement provision of the market rate residential, Chair Gilmore requested
confirmation that the City will not have to pay the $50,000 fee per unit to the Navy. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
Vice Chair Bonta reemphasized that the Navy will maintain their obligation to clean up the
property. The City Manager also reiterated that the City has incurred no environmental liability.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-10-05,2,"81
Member Tam discussed the City's other obligation to provide work-force and affordable housing.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point informed the Board that since staff has been
receiving a lot of inquiries regarding remediation, there will be a presentation from the
Environmental Consultant, Peter Russell, at the November ARRA meeting.
Chair Gilmore stated that, in addition to the no-cost conveyance, the City gets control over the
land. This is a valuable opportunity to develop more long term leases because we can provide
tenants with certainty.
Member deHaan recognized and thanked the members of the BRAG and other numerous
community organizations over the past 15 years. Chair Gilmore joined Member deHaan in
recognizing the community organizations that brought us to this point.
Member Bonta moved to approve the Term Sheet. Member Tam seconded the motion. On
the call for the question, the motion carried by a roll call vote:
Member deHaan - Aye, Member Johnson - Aye, Member Tam - Aye, Vice Chair Bonta -
Aye, Chair Gilmore - Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions: 0
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-071) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of September 1, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan introduced Richard Banger, RAB member, who was present in the in audience.
Mr. Banger compiled a great amount of information on the history and activity regarding the
remediation of Alameda Point on his website: www.alamedapointenvironmentalreport.com
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point added that, with Mr. Banger's help, key information
about remediation will be included on the City's website. Staff is also working with the
Environmental Consultant, Peter Russell, to provide a less technical, shorter executive summary,
but have technical minutes still available.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Carol Gottstein, Alameda citizen, spoke about the base cleanup and informed the public about the
repository at City Hall West which includes a large amount of information regarding the Alameda
Point remediation. Ms. Gottstein recently joined the RAB and encouraged others to join or attend
the RAB meetings.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
The City Manager stated that staff and the Council owes a debt of gratitude to Jennifer Ott (Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point) for all her hard work in bringing us to this point. Vice Chair
Bonta thanked Ms. Ott publicly, commending her on the great work and that the Board is proud of
the fantastic results. Chair Gilmore thanked Ms. Ott for staying the course and working through
many years of frustration. Member Johnson thanked the attorneys for a team effort.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-10-05,3,"82
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, November 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:32 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
(*11-073) Approve the Minutes of the Special Meetings of September 20, 2011 and the Special
and Regular Meetings of October 5, 2011.
(*11-074) Approve a 47-Year Legally Binding Agreement with Alameda Point Collaborative for
Buildings 802, 803, 806, 809, 810, 811 and 812 (30 Units of Housing) and Authorize the Executive
Director to Execute the Agreement and any Related Documents.
Chair Gilmore pulled Item 3-A (minutes) to make a correction. Member Tam moved for
approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Member Tam moved for approval of Item 3-A with the corrections. Vice Chair Bonta
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (Note: Chair Gilmore and
Member Johnson abstained from approving the Minutes of Sept. 20, as they were not
present at that meeting). [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-075) Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions of the Alameda Point
Site.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point introduced the Environmental Consultant of the
Alameda Point Project, Peter Russell, Russell Resources. Dr. Russell provided a powerpoint
presentation on the status of the remediation and environmental issues of Alameda Point.
Dr. Russell's remediation experience includes numerous sites: Fort Ord, Tustin Air Station, Benicia
Arsenal, Mission Bay clean up, and the Southern and Union Pacific rail yards in Sacramento.
Member deHaan commended Dr. Russell and the RAB for all their efforts in the environmental
program of Alameda Point.
Speakers: Dale Smith, Community Chair of RAB and member for 10+ years. Ms. Smith discussed
soil issues not being addressed and CERCLA sites that are still of concern at Alameda Point.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,2,"Chair Gilmore thanked Dr. Russell and members of the RAB for their technical expertise and
diligence over the decade and more.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-076) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of October 6, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan echoed the statements from Dr. Russell's presentation and reminded the public
that the remediation is ongoing, and that a vast majority of property will be given to the ARRA with
certain restrictions.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
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 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,3,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
Comments by Dale Smith, Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair
33:49
The residential standards are for groundwater only, and they
At Alameda Point, cleanup to residential standards means
are not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,
that the health risk and health hazard from both soil and
cadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil that is
groundwater (combined) are health-protective for single-
not being addressed.
family residential land use; which is the most stringent land-
use standard. This principle applies to both the CERCLA
(Full Comment: The talk of residential standards, when I talk
and Petroleum Programs. Accordingly, the concentrations of
to community members, they seem to get confused because
toxic metals in soil are explicitly considered by the Navy
the residential standards are for groundwater only, and they
and the environmental regulatory agencies in deciding
are not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,
whether soil remediation is needed to allow residential land
cadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil, and
use and, if so, the type and extent of that remediation.
that is not being addressed as far as we can tell.)
34:14
Slide 13 represents the CERCLA sites only. There are
Contamination in soil and groundwater at Alameda Point is
petroleum sites that move in and out of CERCLA. One
addressed by either the CERCLA or Petroleum Program,
month they'l be in, and the next month they'l be out. For
whichever appears to be most appropriate. For example, a
example, the plume under Kollmann Circle originally was in
site with petroleum contamination is typically managed
the petroleum site, got put in the CERCLA site.
under the Petroleum Program, unless non-petroleum
contamination also is present. Occasionally, management of
(Full Comment: The graphs in the document, according to
a particular site will transfer from one program to another
the EPA representative, represent the CERCLA sites only,
during the course of investigation and remedial decision
and I don't know if you changed those or you basically used
making. For example, a site may move to the CERCLA
those graphs. You know the tall Yeah,
so
those
are
Program if contamination by a CERCLA substance is found
CERCLA sites only, and there are petroleum sites that move
at a Petroleum Program site. The goals for protection of
in and out of CERCLA. They do a little hula dance. One
human health and the environment are the same with both
month they'll be in, and the next month they'll be out. So
programs.
there are sites that are still of concern, such as the plume
under Kollmann Circle, which originally was in the
petroleum site, but then because of problems in Bayport, it
got put in the CERCLA site. So just bear that in mind. As I
said, the soil is not being remediated.)
35:09
According to the presentation, ""cleanup"" means active
This comment primarily applies to cleanup of groundwater
Page 1 of 1
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,4,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
remediation. However, the cleanup is going on for much
contamination. The remediation of many Alameda Point
longer than that. For example, the RAB had a presentation
groundwater contamination sites follows two principal
on one site (groundwater at OU-2B), where the cleanup was
steps. The first is an initial phase, during which the
going to take 22 to 35 years, and there'll be severe
contamination, especially the source area, is treated, for
restrictions on the use of that site.
example by injection of chemicals or by heating. The
second phase typically consists of periodic groundwater
(Full Comment: Cleanup as defined in the presentation, as I
sampling to monitor progress of natural processes in further
read it or I hear it, means the active remediation done by the
reducing contamination concentrations. The first phase often
military, meaning trucks and things are out there. Scoops are
takes three years or less. The second phase lasts until clean-
digging up dirt. Otherwise the cleanup is going on for much
up goals are reached. The commenter is correct in that the
longer than that. We had a presentation on one site two
second phase can last for several decades, as in the example
months ago where the cleanup was going to take 22 to 35
of Operable Unit 2B (OU-2B).
years, and there'll be severe restrictions on the use of that
site. So bear that in mind.)
During the second phase, land-use restrictions may be
applied to protect monitoring wells and to prevent use of the
groundwater. Depending on the type of groundwater
contamination, land-use restrictions may also require that
building designs include vapor barriers, special ventilation,
etc. to safeguard public health. Land-use restrictions during
the second phase typically do not preclude most uses of the
site. Thus, ""severe restrictions"" on land use typically apply
only to the first few years of cleanup.
35:44
Quite a bit of money is spent on cleanup using innovative
CERCLA requires that clean-up decision making evaluate
technologies. But the Navy is using experimental
the extent to which each remedial alterative under
technologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of
consideration reduces the amount, toxicity, or mobility of
money, so the Navy is able to make presentations to
contaminants through treatment. This statutory preference
scientific boards.
implies that innovative technologies sometimes will be
selected as the preferred clean-up alternative.
(Full Comment: One of the RAB's concerns has been that
there has been quite a bit of money spent on cleanup using
Sometimes it is unclear whether a promising emerging
innovative technologies. But they' re using experimental
technology will be effective under conditions found at
Page 2 of 2
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,5,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
technologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of
Alameda Point. In such cases, a pilot test (a form of
money. So, but they, the Navy then is able to make
experiment) typically is conducted to evaluate how well the
presentations to scientific boards saying that they tried this
technology would work. A pilot test of in-situ thermal
technology and it did not work.)
treatment to treat groundwater was tried at OU-2C and
found to be very cost-effective. Alternatively, a pilot test of
nano-zerovalent-iron injection was tried at OU-2B and
found not to be effective. In both cases, the Navy and the
environmental regulatory agencies unanimously agreed the
pilot testing (experimenting) was a prudent way to evaluate
the promising technology.
The principal instance where experimentation with
technologies has occurred at Alameda Point is regarding
groundwater in another area of OU-2B. In this case, a
university and an EPA national laboratory approached the
Navy for permission to conduct an experiment on
groundwater contamination. The experiment was primarily
funded externally, and the information obtained by the
project has improved clean-up decision making for OU-2B
groundwater.
36:16
An ""active cleanup"" site on Slide 13 means a site for which
The ""Active Cleanup"" column in the graph on Slide 13
the regulators have signed off on site characterization and
includes sites which have completed their RODs and design
remedial investigation, and is to move on to Proposed Plans,
or implementation of the active remediation is in progress.
RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of sites in that category
Sites that are in the Proposed Plan or draft ROD stages are
don't have those in place yet, but they're put in the active
categorized on Slide 13 as ""Under Investigation"" CERCLA
cleanup column anyway.
requires that remedial activities in the field begin within
fifteen months of completing the ROD.
(Full Comment: So active cleanup on that slide show means
anything that has moved to the point where the regulators
The distinctions the comment focuses on will be explained
have signed off on site characterization and remedial
more explicitly on future versions of this slide.
investigation, and now and has moved into a place where
Page 3 of 3
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,6,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
there are Proposed Plans, RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of
it doesn't have those in place yet, but they're put in the
active cleanup column.)
36:46
The presentation (Slide 15) indicated portions of the
The IR Site boundaries on Slide 15 accurately reflect the
Northwest Territories are white (outside of IR Sites). But
BCT's current understanding of the extent of radium in soil
most of these areas have recently been found to have radium
at Northwest Territories. Within the last few years, the
contamination in soil. There is no plan for remediation of
boundaries of the site in the area the comment references
this contamination.
(IR Site 32) were expanded to account for low-level radium
contamination in soil extending over a greater area than was
(Full Comment: The map showed the Northwest Territories
originally recognized. The Navy is currently completing an
to be white, but they have recently been found to be covered
extensive radiological survey of soil in this area. The
with radium to a depth of a half foot to a foot and a half, as I
preliminary results from this investigation indicate that the
recall, in most of it. And there has been no plan as to how
extent of radium in soil does not extend beyond the current
that's going to be remediated, as far as we know.)
IR Site boundaries (into the white areas shown on Slide 15).
37:09
Natural attenuation hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why expect
Natural attenuation consists of a variety of natural processes
it to occur in the next five or ten years?
that reduce contaminant concentrations over time, usually
relatively slowly: biochemical degradation, dispersion,
(Full Comment: And one of, George Humphries, who is my
volatilization, etc. These are commonly effective in
cohort in this battle, likes to point out that natural attenuation
reducing contaminant concentrations to remedial goals after
hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why do you think it's going to
the initial active-cleanup phase.
occur in the next five or ten years?)
A fundamental component of the monitored natural
attenuation part of a clean-up alternative is ongoing
groundwater sampling and analysis to verify that
contaminant concentrations drop as expected. If the levels
do not drop, CERCLA requires that the ROD be changed to
ensure clean-up goals are achieved.
More technical response: Two factors support the
expectation that natural attenuation will work well after
active remediation.
Page 4 of 4
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,7,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
First, underground bacteria and other microbes degrade
many contaminants, often an important component of
natural attenuation. However, initial site conditions may
include contaminant levels that are so high that they are
toxic to the very microorganisms that, with more dilute
concentrations, would readily consume the contamination as
food. Thus, following an initial phase of active cleanup of
the higher concentration zones, natural attenuation can
proceed more effectively.
Second, with initial high contaminant concentrations, the
effect of natural attenuation often is not discernible. This is
because of the inherent variability of sampling and analysis.
A simple example illustrates this point. With an initial
contaminant concentration of 10,000 micrograms per liter
(ug/L) and an inherent sampling variability of plus or minus
ten percent, duplicate sampling and analysis of the same
groundwater could yield analytical results anywhere
between 9,000 ug/L and 11,000 ug/L. Say for discussion
purposes, that natural attenuation reduces the contaminant
concentration by 10 ug/L each year. This rate of natural
attenuation would be difficult to detect in a reasonable
period of time by sampling. On the other hand, after an
initial phase of active remediation that reduces contaminant
levels, to say 300 ug/L, then analysis of duplicate samples
would yield results between 330 ug/L and 270 ug/L (+/-
10%). Now, natural attenuation at a rate of 10 ug/L would
be both meaningful and discernible by sampling and
analysis.
37:25
Planting trees will not be allowed. Gardening and fruit
Restrictions on digging are used sparingly at Alameda
Page 5 of 5
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,8,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
growing will be allowed, but digging a hole in the soil will
Point: in only three instances.
not.
First, the Marsh Crust Ordinance restricts digging below the
(Full Comment: And then to answer, I think, your question
Threshold Depth, unless a permit is obtained first.
about planting trees: no, you will not be able to plant trees.
You'll be able to plant You'l be able to have a garden,
Second, soil cleanup at North Housing (IR Site 25) was
and you' 'll be able to grow fruit, but you will not be able to
conducted in landscaped areas, but not under buildings or
dig a hole in the soil.)
pavement. Accordingly, major site work is restricted
without first obtaining approval from the BCT.
Additionally, digging deeper than four feet below ground
surface at North Housing is prohibited without approval
from the BCT. These restrictions may affect tree planting. In
any case, BCT approval would be granted provided digging
were conducted while following a site management plan
that appropriately manages potential encounters with
contaminated soil.
Third, at Todd Shipyards (IR Site 28), a non-residential
area, digging deeper than two feet below ground surface is
restricted without first obtaining approval from the BCT.
Page 6 of 6
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-12-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, December 7, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:21 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
(*11-081) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of November 2, 2011.
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.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-082) Presentation on Status of Disposition and Development Strategy for Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a power point presentation summarizing the
next steps for moving forward with the no cost reconveyance and development strategy for
Alameda Point. Staff is providing the update to the Board before moving into the next phase of
making recommendations. The summary focused on entitlement, transportation infrastructure,
solicitation and transaction.
Speakers: Carol Gottstein discussed maximizing the land value of Alameda Point, specifically
Building 94, Chapel.
Chair Gilmore stated accountability issues are a downside to Phased Development. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point explained the key is to have really good design up front, and
guiding documents that dictate how larger engineering and structure will work globally, so that the
design is solid. There is concern about different developers doing backbone infrastructure for small
pieces. Having a uniform developer for larger, 100- acre parcels, would narrow accountability
issues with fewer people.
Member Tam discussed concerns about funding of predevelopment costs, backbone
infrastructure, and that the days of tax increment bond funding may not be available because of
the elimination of redevelopment. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point remains positive
that redevelopment will continue, and tax increment bonds will definitely be part of the plan. Staff
will have more information on potential funding sources to present to the Board at a future meeting.
Member deHaan inquired where funding for predevelopment can be derived. The Chief Operating
Officer - Alameda Point discussed the two sides to the equation - cost side and revenue side.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-12-07,2,"With reasonable costs, a developer can provide ideas to test assumptions. ARRA has a fund
balance, with a certain amount spent on planning. Options will be explored to find ways to
leverage for upfront costs. Staff is exploring other sources of low cost capital with contingencies
built into the costs, with the same analysis used for other options.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired about the developer role as an advisor to ARRA. The Chief Operating
Officer - Alameda Point explained that ARRA would be the property owner and maintain control
over entitlement process. With the understanding that ARRA is not a developer, put out an RFQ
for a development advisor, with a recommendation that the advisor actually be a developer with
experience working on large-scale projects, not just a consultant. In this advisor role, the
developer would actually work for the ARRA, are paid a monthly fee, but their contract can be
terminated by the ARRA. The advantage from a transaction standpoint is that it would be a simple
contract; the advisor has no actual rights to development or land. The concept is that the ARRA
maintain control, work in a partnership, but ARRA would be the leader. Vice Chair Bonta inquired
if there are any examples of that type of partnership. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point stated that Hamilton AFB is a similar example. Hamilton hired a team of advisors, which
included attorneys and economic consultants who planned and entitled all of Hamilton. They did
an RFQ with developers and negotiated purchase and sale, but had entitlements all upfront.
Member Johnson expressed concern about handling the most difficult parcels or areas that will
take longer to clean up. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed starting up efforts
and creating value will make the property more valuable. Less money is taken out of the project by
a master developer, which leaves more money in the project for development itself.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point informed the Board that staff would be coming back
to the ARRA with an update in February.
(11-083) Presentation on the Status of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Second Campus
Process.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point provided an oral update on the LBNL Second
Campus process. LBNL announced that they postponed their selection decision to early 2012.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that it is staff's supposition that LBNL has
made a selection, but they are making sure the DOE and UC Regents are on the same page and
policy makers are on board.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
None.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-12-07,3,"9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan gave a brief report on the December 1 RAB meeting. The main issue was the
RAB's plan for ongoing years, specifically the schedule and frequency of meetings. The Navy
proposed to meet on a quarterly basis to cut back on operations costs. Various options are still
being explored, including teleconferencing capabilities. The RAB elected Dale Smith as Co-chair
and Carol Gottstein as Vice Co-chair.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, January 4, 2012
The meeting convened at 7:10 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)
(12-001) Cara Kuhlman, Alameda, discussed starting dialogue with the ARRA to open a
community sailing center program at Alameda Point.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*12-002) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of December 7, 2011.
(*12-003) 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 $165,000 to the Budget.
(*12-004) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson for Civil Engineering and Surveying Consulting Services for Alameda
Point Extending the Term for 24 Months and Adding $74,400 to the Budget.
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
(12-005) Award Contract in the Amount of $225,000 to Keyser Marston Associates to Prepare an
Economic Development Strategy for Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed the Office of Economic Adjustment
$225,000 award to the ARRA to conduct economic development strategy.
Member Johnson expressed concern that any economic strategy or plan may be irrelevant
because of the elimination of the redevelopment agencies. The Chief Operating Officer -
Alameda Point explained that it is even more important to have a strategy in place and be
prepared to attract industrial and commercial users that can help bring in the infrastructure.
Member Tam inquired if there will be an increased dependency on private funds because of the
loss of tax increment funding. Tim Kelly, Keyser Marston, stated that there are lots of opportunity
for growth and enhancement with existing tenants. He discussed other financing tools available,
including Infrastructure Financing Districts and Community Facilities Districts. Mr. Kelly explained
that these financing tools have to be packaged in phases so it can be managed and delivered.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,2,"Member deHaan expressed concern about how to address the community process. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point explained that there was feedback from the community that
there is a bit of fatigue on community meetings. The focus now is to engage the tenants. The
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point agreed with Member deHaan that the Economic
Development Commission and other formal bodies should be engaged.
Vice Chair Bonta moved for approval of the staff recommendation. Member Johnson
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-006) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the United States Navy for the Economic Development
Conveyance of Portions of the Former Naval Air Station Alameda.
Chair Gilmore stated that although the No-Cost Economic Development Conveyance is
overshadowed by the redevelopment news, it is still amazing and exciting news. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point agreed and provided a summary of events. The ARRA
approved a term sheet with the Navy on October 5, 2011. The term sheet contemplated a no-cost
conveyance of Alameda Point from the Navy to the ARRA consistent with the 1996 Reuse Plan.
The Term Sheet became the final amendment to the existing 2000 Memorandum of Agreement
with the Navy. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed the changes, including the
conveyance schedule, the enforcement mechanism, use of proceeds, and the addition of
submerged lands. The conveyance schedule contemplates a vast majority of the property coming
to the ARRA by the end of 2012.
Chair Gilmore thanked staff for working tirelessly and effortlessly over the years to make the No-
Cost Economic Development Conveyance happen.
Proponent: Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES).
Member Tam moved for approval of the staff recommendation. Member Johnson
seconded the motion. Chair Gilmore requested a roll-call vote be conducted: Vice Chair
Bonta - aye, Member deHaan - aye, Member Johnson - aye, Member Tam - aye, Chair
Gilmore - aye. Ayes - 5, Abstentions - 0, Noes - 0.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(12-007) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of December 1, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan stated that he provided the 12/1 update at the December ARRA meeting and
that the RAB will not meet again until March. It is still being evaluated and discussed if RAB
meetings will be held on a quarterly basis.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,3,"7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
The Executive Director re-emphasized the news of the ARRA receiving portions of Alameda Point
at a No-Cost Conveyance.
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 7:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,4,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:
(12-015) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators: Human
Resources Director and Masa Shiohira; Employee Organizations: Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), Alameda City Employees Association
(ACEA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and Police Officers
Non-Sworn (PANS).
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that the labor negotiators provided the status of negotiations with four
bargaining units: IBEW, ACEA, PANs, and MCEA.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,5,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012- -7:02 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners
Allen,
Bonta,
deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 6.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(12-017 CC) Resolution No. 14634, ""(1) Determining It Will Serve as a Successor
Agency to the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (""CIC""); (2)
Electing Not to Retain the Housing Assets and Functions Previously Performed by the
CIC; (3) Authorizing Assumption by the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
(""Housing Authority"") of the Rights, Powers, Assets, Liabilities, Duties, and Obligations
Associated with the Housing Activities of the CIC; and (4) Authorizing the City Manager
to Enter Into an Agreement with the Housing Authority to Fund Costs Associated with
the Transferred Housing Activities."" Adopted; and
(12-001 A HABOC) Resolution No. 836, ""(1) Agreeing to Assume the Rights, Powers,
Assets, Liabilities, Duties, and Obligations Associated with the Housing Activities of the
Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda; and (2) Authorizing the
Executive Director to Enter Into an Agreement with the City of Alameda to Fund Costs
Associated with the Transferred Housing Activities."" Adopted.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated redevelopment agencies would cease to exist on February
1st, but agreements for 400 redevelopment agencies would not suddenly come into
existence on February 2nd
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated agreements would exist
because of each agency's enforceable obligation schedule.
In response to Mayor/Chair Gilmore's inquiry, the Housing Development and Programs
Manager stated the County Auditor-Controller would need to audit each agency's
enforceable obligation schedule by July 1st.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether a trust fund would be
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
1
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,6,"automatically established by ABX1 26, to which the Housing Development and
Programs Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated on February 1st, responsible agencies would start
expending funds in the normal course of business; hopefully, reimbursement would be
set in place on July 1st.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated an administrative budget
needs to be presented for each successor agency by February; the legislation has
some inconsistencies; last year, an obligation schedule was done which predicted
payment obligations pursuant to enforceable obligations; the next one would be due
March 1st, which would cover January 1st to June 30th; schedules would need to be
approved by the Oversight Board that would review work of the successor agency; the
Oversight Board would not come into existence until May 1st; suggested amending
Section 7 to read: ""This resolution shall take effect and be enforced as of the deadline
for adoption of this resolution established pursuant to State law as may be amended
from time to time"".
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquired whether the City could recover money, to
which the City Manager/Executive Director responded the money has not been
submitted yet.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated the State was not hitting budget targets before the ruling; it
appeared that automatic cuts would go into effect; the State will not receive $1.7 billion
due to legislation being declared unconstitutional.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated that the State has centralized what the
payments would be but has created chaos throughout the system.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta stated things are moving very quickly; that he wants to
ensure that the City does not do something it will regret later; inquired what precautions
would be taken if another legislative remedy caused the City's successor agency role to
not be advantageous, to which the City Manager/Executive Director responded the
resolutions could always be amended.
In response to Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta's inquiry, Rafael Mandelman, Burke,
Williams, and Sorensen, stated January 13th is the drop-dead date for cities to opt out of
becoming a successor agency.
Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson stated a significant amount of affordable
housing has been created by redevelopment agencies; inquired whether affordable
housing would also cease.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded hopefully, housing
advocates would do something about having a permanent income stream fund for
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
2
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,7,"affordable housing; stated the need would not go away.
Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson stated the City receives allocations from the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); without said money, houses cannot be
built regardless of the allocations.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated redevelopment has been the primary
economic development program in California; without economic development, there is
no money for schools or work force housing; that he predicts the State would replace
some functions but would do so in a centralized, clunky way rather than in a flexible,
nimble, and local manner.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other municipalities are handling
the issue, to which the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded
Alameda would be the first to act on the matter.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated that redevelopment pays for police officers,
half of the Mayor, Council, and Auditor's salary, which otherwise would need to come
from the General Fund; everything would have to made up from the General Fund; the
City has never honeycombed redevelopment.
Mr. Mandelman stated the landscape is rapidly changing and the law is drafted poorly;
there will be many messy situations over the next months; the City would be taking on
responsibility to manage some of the chaos by becoming the successor agency;
management would be done by an unfriendly Oversight Board.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta inquired whether another path or second best
approach might be adequate but would not be as good as the one recommended
tonight.
Mr. Mandelman responded tonight's recommendation is the only way to go if the City
wants to be a successor agency; stated otherwise, the Governor would appoint County
residents.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated Council has tried for a number of years to get Alameda
Point from the Navy so that the City could have local control and have a say in how
things move forward.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated the City would want local
control over the Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement; exercising
local control over the project would be important.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the City would have local control but would
lose its ability to generate local revenue through redevelopment; the City would be more
dependant upon private developer funding for infrastructure and meeting affordable
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
3
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,8,"housing marketing objectives; the City would have to find some way to be more
marketable and needs to fight fiercely.
The Acting City Attorney/Legal Council stated a lot of new ideas would be forthcoming.
Mr. Mandelman stated the California Redevelopment Association and League of
California Cities are actively focusing on State goals but would include goals important
to Alameda such as Base reuse and housing.
In favor of resolutions: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, and Jon
Spangler, Alameda.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore expressed appreciation to staff for acting so quickly on the matter;
stated the recommendation is viable.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta inquired whether tonight's recommendation would be
the only way to exercise local control, to which Mr. Mandelman responded that he thinks
so.
In response to Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Mandelman stated
the deadline for dissolution is February 1st; up to that time, the legislature would have an
opportunity to come up with something that would work for communities that have
bases that need to be redeveloped; the deadline for deciding whether to be a successor
agency is January 13th
The Chief Operating Officer stated that she has a conference call scheduled for 8:30
a.m. tomorrow with base reuse communities.
Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson moved adoption of the resolutions with noted
amendment to Section 7.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 6.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:37
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
4
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012--7:01 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:49 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Boaro Members Bonta, deHaan,
Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmembers/Board Member Johnson moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Board Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(12-016 CC) Resolution No. 14642, ""Appropriating $379,000 in Federal HOME Funds
and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute the Necessary Documents
to
Complete the Loan to the Alameda Point Collaborative for Acquisition of 240 Corpus
Christi, 230 Corpus Christi, 2471 Orion, 2451 Orion, 201 Stardust, 251 Stardust, and
271 Stardust (""Property"").' Adopted; and
(12-008 ARRA) Recommendation to Approve Financing on the Property in the Amount
of $2,279,000. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEM
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:50
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf