body,date,page,text,path
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
CityCouncil,2006-11-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY - -NOVEMBER 1, 2006- -6:50 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:03 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-530) Proclamation declaring November 6 through 11, 2006 as
Alameda Fire Department Recognition week.
Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to the Fire
Chief and Firefighters.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-531) Ordinance No. 2954, ""Reclassifying and Rezoning
Approximately .8-Acres Located at 2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue
from M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R-2/PD,
Neighborhood Residential/Planned Development Combining District. ""
Finally passed.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Council is voting on a
maximum of 83 units on 4.8 acres.
The Supervising Planner responded Council is voting on rezoning the
property to R-2; assumptions were made to try to estimate how many
units could be on the 4.8 acres; changing assumptions might
increase or decrease the number of units; the Planning Board would
approve the site plan and have discretion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied with the staff
recommendation; staff should work in a band of reasonableness and
not allow an increase to 160 units.
The Supervising Planner further stated with normal, square shaped
lots, 83 units should be close to the maximum; there should not be
significantly more than 83 units; significant being 20 units.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the area being considered does not
include Estuary Park, to which the Supervising Planner responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the area is not being considered for open
space because the focus for open space is Estuary Park; inquired
whether R-2 requires more open space than prior proposals.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
November 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-01,2,"The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
*
Mayor Johnson left the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he trusts staff to work within a
band of reasonableness; 83 units works out to 17 units per acre;
noted Bayport has only 11 units per acre.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not previously support the
rezoning because he wanted to do further research; R-2 is the best
zone to do and the proper choice; concurred with Councilmember
Daysog's comments that 83 units is quite dense.
Councilmember Daysog stated the project is not as dense as the old
drive-in property.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Bayport is zoned R-1, to which
the Supervising Planner responded the site is zoned MX.
Councilmember deHaan stated the roads at the old drive-in site
caused a lot of concern.
The Supervising Planner noted any development would require other
discretionary review and approval such as the subdivision, site
plan, and design review.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:18 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
2
November 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-01,3,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 1, 2006- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present
: Councilmembers/Authority Members Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
(06-529) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency negotiators;
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers IBEW) Management and Confidential Employees
Association, Executive Management Group, and Police Association
Non-Sworn.
(ARRA) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of
case : Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, ASBCA No. 54684 -
Under Contract No. N62474-97-RP-00P68.
Following the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council
received an update on the status of negotiations with the various
bargaining units; stated Council has reached a tentative agreement
with IBEW; regarding Existing Litigation, the Authority reviewed
potential terms of settlement and direction was given regarding
potential settlement terms.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:00 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
November 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-01,4,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY - -NOVEMBER 1, 2006- -6:55 P.M.
Acting Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese
and Acting Chair Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Chair Johnson - 1.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent : Chair Johnson - 1. ]
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
(
*06-065) - Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
enter into Contracts with the Park Street Business Association
(PSBA) in the amount of $108,020.00 and the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA) in the amount of $98,200.00 for Fiscal Year
2006-07. -
(*06-066) Recommendation to approve Amendment to Predevelopment
Agreement with the Alameda Unified School District for Affordable
Housing at the Island High School Site.
AGENDA ITEMS
None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
November 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf
GolfCommission,2006-11-01,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Betsy Gammell called the special meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in
the Ladies Lounge, Chuck Corica Golf Complex, #1 Clubhouse Memorial
Road, Alameda, CA.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Chair Betsy Gammell,
Secretary Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz, Commissioner Jane
Sullwold and Vice Chair Bob Wood. Absent: Commissioner Sandré
Swanson. Also present was General Manager Dana Banke.
2.
AGENDA ITEMS:
2-A
Endorsement of the Miracle League. (Action Item)
Representatives from the Miracle League gave a brief overview of the league at
the September 20, 2006 meeting. At that time the Miracle League requested that
the Golf Commission consider endorsing the league. Since the item was not on
the
September 20th agenda as an action item, the motion for endorsement was
nullified. The item was placed on the agenda for the special meeting as an action
item. The Golf Commission endorsed the Miracle League by a vote of 4 to 1.
2-B
Approval of Outside Advertising Campaign for December 2006 and January
2007. (Action Item).
The General Manager reported that he received an email soliciting advertising for
the AT&T Pro Am on the golf carts at the Complex. The program runs for two
months, during December and January and the company will pay the Complex
$4,000. The Golf Commission approved the two-month advertising campaign
unanimously with the notation that any and all future advertising is brought to the
Golf Commission for approval.
2-C
Discussion on Future Special Joint Meeting with the City Council.
The General Manager reported that he would be working on the cost
estimates for the site improvements and structure for the grass area
between the restaurant and Driving Range to house the tent structure for
banquet services. It was decided that a Power Point presentation would be
Page 1 of 2",GolfCommission/2006-11-01.pdf
GolfCommission,2006-11-01,2,"prepared for the Special Joint meeting with the City Council.
Commissioner Wood and the General Manager will work together on
arranging the presentation. It was suggested that a priority list of Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP's) for the Golf Complex be compiled for
information and discussion at the Special Joint Meeting.
3.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The Special Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 PM.
The agenda for the special meeting was posted 24 hours in advance in accordance with
the Brown Act.
Page 2 of 2",GolfCommission/2006-11-01.pdf