{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday. November 1, 2006\nThe meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006.\nMember Daysog pulled Item 2-A to articulate what he meant when he referenced certain letters\nregarding the ARRA's No-Cost EDC with the Navy. He reiterated his point that if we could\nreturn to the original understanding of the housing units that could be built-out per the\ndocuments agreed to by the ARRA and the Navy, perhaps we would not have to pay the\n$108,000 million the navy is now requiring. Member Daysog wanted to make sure this point\nwas captured in this evening's meeting, since it was missed in the Minutes of October 4th.\n2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore was not present\nat the 10-4-06 ARRA meeting).\n2-B. Recommendation to approve consultant agreement with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers for\nPier Condition Analysis at Alameda Point in an amount not to exceed $170,226\nApproval of 2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Project Update\nDebbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an overview on the Master\nDeveloper RFQ process. At the direction of the Board, the RFQ was issued on October 19th with\na mandatory bidder's conference on Monday, October 30th. There were 20 firms that attended\nthe bidder's conference. All due diligence documents were provided on a CD and an FTP site\navailable for all interested firms, and a comprehensive download of the land planning, the\nenvironmental issues, the public trust, summary of term sheet; and an opportunity for those\npresent to ask questions. One-on-one meetings were also offered with the firms intending to\nrespond, with nine firms signed up. Responses are due December 4, 2006 and need to be", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\naccompanied by a $20,000 non-refundable filing fee. The responses received will be evaluated\nand brought back to the ARRA should we receive responses with a recommendation to enter into\na 45-day negotiation period.\nThere was one speaker slip, Andrew Slifka, long-time Alameda resident and also a representative\nof the Carpenter's Union in Alameda County, and speaking on behalf of the Construction\nBuilding Trades Council of Alameda County. Mr. Slifka addressed concerns and disappointment\nwith the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) withdrawal from the project since they had\na Project Labor Agreement with APCP. He urged the Board to look at the same requirements for\nany developer that should come forward, because Project Labor agreements bring value to the\ncommunity, well-paying jobs with benefits, careers and local work opportunities.\nMember Daysog asked if specific questions regarding the financing of the project were outlined\nin the RFQ. He commented on the financing/business model associated with revitalizing the\nCatellus project and how it was distinct from the business model that was employed for the rest\nof Alameda Point. He also discussed incorporating a different business model.\nDavid Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, responded that developers will be asked who their\nsource of capital is and for a deposit of \"earnest money\" in the amount or $1 million before a\ndeveloper is selected. This information will be provided to the Board.\nMember Daysog asked if the potential developers understood the amount of property open for\nredevelopment. Ms. Potter responded that the $108 million purchase price is based on Phases 1\nand Phases 2, which is essentially everything but the Wildlife Refuge and the area south of\nAtlantic Ave. and north of the 26-acre park, plus the golf course. David Brandt also clarified that\nwe were careful to let the developers know that the PDC wasn't an entitlement.\nMember Matarrese asked whether a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) was presented to the\nbidders as part of the package that APCP (former master developer) put together. Debbie Potter\nresponded that a PLA was not included in the RFQ and that it was not a requirement of the City\nwhen the first master developer was selected; but that a PLA was voluntarily agreed to by at least\ntwo out of the three finalists during the first master developer selection process.\nMember Matarrese requested that bidders be notified that a PLA was part of the original\nagreement and that the City does have a policy on prevailing wage. He was concerned that\nbidders would try to make their numbers work at the cost of labor. Ms. Potter said that a copy of\nthe previously agreed-to document will be posted on the RFQ FTP site.\nMember deHaan discussed extending the current month-to-month leasing policy to a year-to-\nyear policy in anticipation that the master developer would start taking down property. David\nBrandt acknowledged that the current ARRA direction is that all leases over a year come to the\nARRA, and that potential tenants are told that redevelopment is imminent so long term leases are\nnot being offered. This is being reevaluated to decide whether to start bringing longer term leases\nto the ARRA.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 3, "text": "an agreement (not even actually shoveling dirt or tearing down buildings, etc.) David Brandt\nresponded that the soonest would be two years. Member Gilmore commented that this increases\nthe timeframe \"window\" and recommended that when staff returns in January with the study\nsession of the leases, it might be worthwhile to take a look at not just the 3rd and 4th phases, but\nthe 1st and 2nd phases, too. Ms. Little clarified that we will be presenting an entire overview of\nall the leasing and it can be compared against the PDC.\nNo action was taken on this item - it was an update and for informational purposes only.\n3-B. Alameda Point Environmental Remediation Update: Western Shoreline - IR Sites\n1,2, and 32, Soil at IR Site 25 (Coast Guard North Housing), and Compliance with\nMarsh Crust Ordinance\nDebbie Potter gave an update on the clean-up status of these specific IR sites, as requested at the\nOctober 4 ARRA meeting. Peter Russell, environmental consultant from Russell Resources, was\navailable to answer questions from the Board as a follow-up to the staff report provided.\nMember Matarrese's main concern was the Navy's option to install an engineered cap rather than\na soil cover over landfill waste. Member Matarrese, along with the rest of the Board members,\ndiscussed at length their preferred alternative: having the Navy scoop out the landfill sites and\nhaul it away.\nDebbie Potter discussed the process by which Peter Russell reviews all documents the Navy\npromulgates regarding all IR sites. She explained that we comment during the public comment\nperiod, but we do it at a staff level. She agrees with Member Gilmore about the policy-level\ndecision that we want clean-up to a level that supports the community reuse plan and the PDC,\nand that the Navy has committed to clean-up to the reuses that are identified in the PDC. Ms\nPotter further explained, and reiterated by Peter Russell, that the ARRA-preferred option to\nscoop and haul the landfill is not economically feasible - and an engineered cap is potentially\nequally effective. She said that the City advocated the engineered cap since the beginning when\nwe secured the pilot grant from EPA. Ms. Potter stated that the engineered cap is financially\nviable and is scientifically the best solution, a decision staff concluded in consultation with\nenvironmental experts.\nMember Matarrese commented that he had issues with the feasibility, that it didn't sound so\ndaunting at the RAB meetings and that the scoop and haul option is actually feasible. Peter\nRussell responded that from a technical standpoint, the scoop and haul option would cost more.\nDebbie Potter sought direction from the ARRA as to a response for the public comment period\ndue to the Navy by Nov. 10th", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4\nMember Matarrese motioned to direct staff to submit a letter to the Navy during the public\ncomment period to include the ARRA policy aspect and endorse the preferred solution of\nscoop and haul, rather than an engineered cap. This motion was seconded by Member\nDaysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nReport was covered in discussion of Item 3-B, above.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nMayoral Candidate, Kenneth Kahn, stated that it would be an honor to serve with all of the\nmembers of the Board.\n5.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan clarified a comment that was made regarding parolees working at Alameda\nPoint. He stated that we indeed had parolees working at Alameda Point about 10 years ago\nthrough the Volunteers of America Program, under the control of the Navy. He explained that\nwe were short of man-power, so we utilized San Quentin inmates that were being transitioned for\nlandscaping and maintenance.\n6. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY - -NOVEMBER 1, 2006- -6:50 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:03 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(06-530) Proclamation declaring November 6 through 11, 2006 as\nAlameda Fire Department Recognition week.\nMayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to the Fire\nChief and Firefighters.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(06-531) Ordinance No. 2954, \"Reclassifying and Rezoning\nApproximately .8-Acres Located at 2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue\nfrom M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R-2/PD,\nNeighborhood Residential/Planned Development Combining District. \"\nFinally passed.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the Council is voting on a\nmaximum of 83 units on 4.8 acres.\nThe Supervising Planner responded Council is voting on rezoning the\nproperty to R-2; assumptions were made to try to estimate how many\nunits could be on the 4.8 acres; changing assumptions might\nincrease or decrease the number of units; the Planning Board would\napprove the site plan and have discretion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied with the staff\nrecommendation; staff should work in a band of reasonableness and\nnot allow an increase to 160 units.\nThe Supervising Planner further stated with normal, square shaped\nlots, 83 units should be close to the maximum; there should not be\nsignificantly more than 83 units; significant being 20 units.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the area being considered does not\ninclude Estuary Park, to which the Supervising Planner responded in\nthe affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the area is not being considered for open\nspace because the focus for open space is Estuary Park; inquired\nwhether R-2 requires more open space than prior proposals.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 2, "text": "The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n*\nMayor Johnson left the meeting at 7:15 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he trusts staff to work within a\nband of reasonableness; 83 units works out to 17 units per acre;\nnoted Bayport has only 11 units per acre.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he did not previously support the\nrezoning because he wanted to do further research; R-2 is the best\nzone to do and the proper choice; concurred with Councilmember\nDaysog's comments that 83 units is quite dense.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the project is not as dense as the old\ndrive-in property.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Bayport is zoned R-1, to which\nthe Supervising Planner responded the site is zoned MX.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the roads at the old drive-in site\ncaused a lot of concern.\nThe Supervising Planner noted any development would require other\ndiscretionary review and approval such as the subdivision, site\nplan, and design review.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:18 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA\nREUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 1, 2006- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent\n: Councilmembers/Authority Members Daysog,\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese,\nand\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\n(06-529) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency negotiators;\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations :\nAlameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers IBEW) Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation, Executive Management Group, and Police Association\nNon-Sworn.\n(ARRA) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of\ncase : Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, ASBCA No. 54684 -\nUnder Contract No. N62474-97-RP-00P68.\nFollowing the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council\nreceived an update on the status of negotiations with the various\nbargaining units; stated Council has reached a tentative agreement\nwith IBEW; regarding Existing Litigation, the Authority reviewed\npotential terms of settlement and direction was given regarding\npotential settlement terms.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nNovember 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nWEDNESDAY - -NOVEMBER 1, 2006- -6:55 P.M.\nActing Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese\nand Acting Chair Gilmore - 4.\nAbsent :\nChair Johnson - 1.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent : Chair Johnson - 1. ]\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n(\n*06-065) - Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to\nenter into Contracts with the Park Street Business Association\n(PSBA) in the amount of $108,020.00 and the West Alameda Business\nAssociation (WABA) in the amount of $98,200.00 for Fiscal Year\n2006-07. -\n(*06-066) Recommendation to approve Amendment to Predevelopment\nAgreement with the Alameda Unified School District for Affordable\nHousing at the Island High School Site.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:19 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING\nWednesday, November 1, 2006\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nChair Betsy Gammell called the special meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in\nthe Ladies Lounge, Chuck Corica Golf Complex, #1 Clubhouse Memorial\nRoad, Alameda, CA.\n1-A.\nRoll Call\nRoll call was taken and members present were: Chair Betsy Gammell,\nSecretary Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz, Commissioner Jane\nSullwold and Vice Chair Bob Wood. Absent: Commissioner Sandr\u00e9\nSwanson. Also present was General Manager Dana Banke.\n2.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n2-A\nEndorsement of the Miracle League. (Action Item)\nRepresentatives from the Miracle League gave a brief overview of the league at\nthe September 20, 2006 meeting. At that time the Miracle League requested that\nthe Golf Commission consider endorsing the league. Since the item was not on\nthe\nSeptember 20th agenda as an action item, the motion for endorsement was\nnullified. The item was placed on the agenda for the special meeting as an action\nitem. The Golf Commission endorsed the Miracle League by a vote of 4 to 1.\n2-B\nApproval of Outside Advertising Campaign for December 2006 and January\n2007. (Action Item).\nThe General Manager reported that he received an email soliciting advertising for\nthe AT&T Pro Am on the golf carts at the Complex. The program runs for two\nmonths, during December and January and the company will pay the Complex\n$4,000. The Golf Commission approved the two-month advertising campaign\nunanimously with the notation that any and all future advertising is brought to the\nGolf Commission for approval.\n2-C\nDiscussion on Future Special Joint Meeting with the City Council.\nThe General Manager reported that he would be working on the cost\nestimates for the site improvements and structure for the grass area\nbetween the restaurant and Driving Range to house the tent structure for\nbanquet services. It was decided that a Power Point presentation would be\nPage 1 of 2", "path": "GolfCommission/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 2, "text": "prepared for the Special Joint meeting with the City Council.\nCommissioner Wood and the General Manager will work together on\narranging the presentation. It was suggested that a priority list of Capital\nImprovement Projects (CIP's) for the Golf Complex be compiled for\ninformation and discussion at the Special Joint Meeting.\n3.\nANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 PM.\nThe agenda for the special meeting was posted 24 hours in advance in accordance with\nthe Brown Act.\nPage 2 of 2", "path": "GolfCommission/2006-11-01.pdf"}