{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-05", "page": 2, "text": "any, are available without completing the project proforma and negotiating a DDA, which is due\nin June 2010. The CIC has made no commitment of funds to the project. Its only obligation is to\nnegotiate in good faith on both the land plan and public./private partnership until the ENA\nexpires in June of 2010. The DDA must be approved by the City Council and the CIC; and until\nthe DDA is approved, it is not possible for the CIC to commit funds to the project. Under the\nterms of the ENA, SunCal is paying for all city staff costs and third party consultant costs\nconsistent with the requirement for the fiscal neutrality that we demand.\nMember Matarrese referred to the comments included in the staff report and stated that it was\nimportant to make a distinction whether the points being raised were from the boards or from\nindividuals.\nPat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager gave the presentation. The presentation\nwill be made available on SunCal's website. At the conclusion of the presentation, Chair Johnson\ncalled all of the speakers first:\nCorinne Lambden - concerned about the historical relevant structures, and would like Board to\nconsider all options of adaptive reuse before permanently destroying them. Mary Fetherolf -\nthanked SunCal for the presentation and asked a couple of process questions about where to find\nthe financial models and assumptions of the project, and about the draft Master Plan. Elizabeth\nKrase - spoke on behalf of AAPS. She discussed concerns about the historic buildings planned\nfor demolition, stating that it's not acceptable. Doug Biggs - APC has enjoyed participating in\nthe SunCal community process and supports SunCal's plan. 'Chelle Fredrick - excited to see\nthe progress that has been made, encouraged by the plan that acknowledges the unprecedented\npotential of Alameda point yet still recognizes the constraints. Diane Lichtenstein - echoed what\nMi'Chelle Frederick said. Interested in how the development will happen, and would like to see\nmore of the integration and diversity in the types of housing and structures. Helen Sause -\ncongratulated Member deHaan and Member Gilmore for their re-elections. Had a request that the\ncity undertake an active role in developing the transit system which addresses the whole island.\nGretchen Lipow - discussed fiduciary responsibility of the Alameda Point project. Nancy\nHeastings - from HOMES, complimented SunCal on its transit oriented design, and wanted to\nknow the date and review process for the transportation plan. John Knox White -requested the\nARRA really give direct direction to SunCal as to what they would like to support before the\nprocess moves forward. He discussed that we cannot try to react to the market, we need to look\nat something that has that flexibility, and a plan we can be proud of in 50 or 100 years. Arthur\nLipow - discussed the poor economy and traffic mitigation issues, and suggested an alternative\nof a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust that could have productive uses of the structures.\nSusan Decker - supports SunCal's plan and the flexibility in their process. Encouraged that it\nwould produce something that is truly an asset to Alameda. Michael Krueger - agreed with most\nof the speakers and is supportive of SunCal's plan.\nChair Johnson explained that this meeting has to be recessed in order to reconvene the PUB\nmeeting of earlier.\nMeeting was recessed at 9:15 p.m. by Chair Johnson. All Board members agreed that Item\n3-A (SunCal's Development Concept) and the balance of the 11/5 agenda be continued at a\nSpecial ARRA Meeting scheduled on November 18, 2008.\nRespectfully submitted,\nArmaElidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-18", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, November 18, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 9:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-B\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to Agreement with Russell\nResources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term\nfor 12 Months and Adding $147,500 to the Budget.\n2-B. Approve a One-year Lease with Two One-Year Options with Makani Power for a Portion\nof Hangar 12.\nMember deHaan motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member\nMatarrese, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nThis portion of the meeting is a continuation of the Regular ARRA Meeting of 11/5, which\nwas recessed by Chair Johnson. On 11/5, all Board members agreed that Item 3-A\n(SunCal's Development Concept) and the balance of the 11/5 agenda be continued at the\nSpecial ARRA Meeting scheduled on November 18, 2008.\n3-A. Alameda Point Update - Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept\n(Continued from the November 5, 2008 Regular Meeting)\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an overview\nregarding the purpose of presenting SunCal's Development Concept, which was to solicit\nfeedback and comments from the ARRA to move forward with the draft Master Plan, which is\ndue Dec. 19th\nChair Johnson called the public speakers first. Michael Krueger reiterated a point that if any\nboard member cannot support the plan for whatever reason, now is the appropriate time to\ndiscuss and raise objections, and what changes need to be made. Arthur Lipow discussed his\nconcerns about the impact of the bankruptcies of SunCal Companies to the Alameda Point\nproject. Susan Decker discussed her continued support of the Plan.\nThe Board reminded the public that the list of questions from the last meeting on Nov. 5th has\nbeen summarized and will be addressed this evening. Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point\nProject Manager, Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers, Peter Calthorpe and Peter Tagami, of\nCalifornia Capital Group, were present to answer questions.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-18", "page": 2, "text": "Member Gilmore stated that a key issue revolves around the feasibility of implementation and\nthe traffic solutions - how to move people on and off the island. She discussed this as being a big\npart of her comfort level with regard to whether the plan can be executed. She wants to see real\nlife examples of the solutions in place and working, and does not want Alameda to be the\nexperiment. Member Matarrese had two transportation-related points: how we are addressing\ncommute in the tube into China Town, and truck routes, how are we moving goods?\nMatthew Ridgway, consultant from Fehr & Peers, addressed the transportation issues. He stated\nthat traffic congestion is expected to be worse, regardless of Alameda Point redevelopment, as\nmoving traffic to/from Alameda Point is secondary next to the traffic moving through the tube\nand the 880 corridor. One of the questions was whether the option of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)\nwas out. Mr. Ridgway responded 'no', but is reserving the right of way to bus transit alignment.\nHe further discussed that the project is developer funded and funding will be sought from AC\nTransit and other funding sources. Another question was regarding buy-in of other stakeholders.\nMr. Ridgway explained that they are working with AC Transit for funding issues and Caltrans on\nBroadway/Jackson improvements, but there is a much larger group of stake holders, and they are\nnot assuming things outside of Alameda's purview.\nThe Board had requested a matrix be created. Mr. Ridgway prepared a draft which highlights\nmajor differences between the three plans, the APCP plan, the WRT plan, and the current SunCal\nplan. One of the major differences they realized was having an onsite school, which was carried\nforward to the current AP transportation strategy. A rapid bus element was not definitive in\nother plans, but in the current AP transportation strategy, it is definitive to fund a rapid bus\ntransit system, also proposing to fund construction and operating costs for an additional BRT line\nacross the whole island to the Fruitvale BART station in order to increase transit use throughout\nthe island. A bikeshare program is being proposed; and another dramatic difference is a\nprogressive parking plan, which was in the APCP plan, and is carried forward to the current plan.\nShared parking, unbundling cost of residential parking, commercial fee based-parking, parking\nmaximums, limit number of auto trips - new elements included in the summary of the matrix\nproposed to reduce auto trips.\nChair Johnson and Member Matarrese were concerned about the passive incentives of parking,\nwhich did not have the effect that was intended, because other transportation hasn't been\nprovided. Member Gilmore discussed these unintended consequences and not being able to lure\nbusiness to site because there is not enough parking. Member deHaan discussed the real life\nsituation in Alameda, that streets upon streets are constrained because of no parking. He stated\nhis concern that lack of parking has not driven Alamedans to use public transportation.\nMr. Ridgway explained that possibly parking shortages weren't in tandem with a whole host of\ntransportation alternatives. They are proposing to implement the transportation alternatives and\nprovide the level of parking that would balance with those alternatives - to be effective\neconomically and be viable. They are trying to develop a plan that addresses all these issues.\nChair Johnson stated that if we insure other transportation alternatives were available, people\nwould use it.\nVice Chair Tam discussed the City's settlement with Oakland China town over the impact of the\nAlameda Point project with traffic in China Town - a traffic level threshold was generated, and\nthe appropriate level was 1800 units. She asked Mr. Ridgway if their mitigation measures are all\nto get back to that threshold level. Mr. Ridgway affirmed, stating that they are marketing the\nplan as a green development - you live here because you only have one car or no car - the\npeople that have a lifestyle with fewer or no automobiles would want to live here.\nAnother question addressed how the water emergency transit authority will interface and will\nmeet the needs for maintenance and fueling facilities, and if this can be accommodated at", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-18", "page": 3, "text": "Alameda Point. Mr. Ridgway explained that they have looked at the issue of relocation of the\nferry terminal to the estuary or to sea plane lagoon, but have not looked at dredging or fueling\nstations; and have not reached that level of detail at this point.\nAnother request from the Board was to provide examples of transit alternatives. Fehr & Peers\nprovided a handout with information which cites several examples. Studies included comparative\nanalysis of transit uses among specific cities in the bay area. They are diligent in citing statistics\nand research conducted nationally to reduce the number of auto trips. Regarding funds for island\nwide transportation solutions, Mr. Ridgway stated that operating and capital cost are being borne\nby the Alameda Point project. In response to the request to have an analysis of how many vehicle\ntrips this plan will create, Mr. Ridgway said that a detailed phasing plan will be included in the\nDec. 19 draft master plan.\nMember Matarrese reiterated that the PDC and concept plan didn't address the issue of goods\nand services moving on and off Alameda Point - truck routes, etc. for commercial and retail. He\nstressed that this is a critical component that needs to be addressed.\nFor Peter Calthorpe addressed the next category of issues regarding adaptive reuse and light\nindustrial questions, and questions regarding examples of other transit oriented development.\nMr. Calthorpe gave a presentation of several examples of comparable mixed use developments,\nhousing over retail, live-work - in other bay area cities including Oakland, Richmond, Daly City,\nSan Mateo, and San Jose. Alameda Point has a unique component to offer which attracts entities\nto the various mixed-use elements, that Alameda Point has the ability to have a large company\n\"campus\".\nVice Chair Tam asked Mr. Calthorpe to comment on creating that buffer between the different\ntypes of uses so there are no inherent conflicts that city councils have to deal with. Mr.\nCalthorpe explained that, until you get to real industrial uses, you don't have to buffer. The\nbeauty of that mix, the services, parks and shops are double duty - if you put a store in a\ntypically residential neighborhood, it won't be used - but if you put it in mixed use - it's used\nthroughout the day, a better viability and keeps folks out of their cars. We're all focused on\ntransit mode.\nMember deHaan asked about adaptive reuse and light industry, and the compatibility of this? Mr.\nCalthorpe stated that the parcels for commercial development are not best used as light\nindustrial, rather as low-rise office, and some historic reuse that can be industrial; explaining that\nwhen you invest this much in public infrastructure, the parks and transit - you don't want to\ndedicate land to light industrial - it would be underutilization for light industrial. Member\nMatarrese wanted to discuss the potential reuse of hangars.\nPhil Tagami, of California Capital Group, continued the presentation by discussing adaptive\nreuse of the historical district structures. He discussed the tax credits and identified the protected\nhistoric districts. His focus is on 23 of 86 buildings identified, including the flight tower and the\ndive building. In total, he was asked to study 1.3M sq. ft. of space, as well as preserving and\nprotecting the open space that is part of that. One of the tests of being able to restore the\nbuildings is to give equal attention, respect to the buildings, and early involvement is key -\nhaving the opportunity to transition and put the site into reuse NOW would protect from further\ndecay, create use and activity, and generate more revenue. There is a demand for certain\nactivities and good transitional uses; now is the opportunity to have the time to become intimate\nwith these buildings and begin process of next phase.\nMember deHaan stated that the Navy had an inventory of the historical buildings and had desires\nand needs for specific ones. He asked how far we are in that process and does it relate to the 23\nof 86 buildings. Mr. Tagami stated that they are 1/3 of the way done and there is a lot of due\ndiligence that needs to be exercised. He further explained that the Navy hasn't fully processed", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-18", "page": 4, "text": "the application for the historic district. Clear policies and a well-thought-of redevelopment effort\nrequires patience, due diligence, and there will be verbal sparring - a challenge and constraint\nthat they are ready to engage in. Mr. Tagami discussed a similar situation with the Fox Theatre\nin Oakland - there were more reasons why you can't renovate the building versus why you can -\nand there's a shorter time horizon here at Alameda Point, so they are willing to explore adaptive\nreuse prior to transfer and are ready to take that risk.\nMember Matarrese asked whether Mr. Tagami has had discussions with the City regarding\ntransitional use prior to transfer and whether we are pursuing this. Member Matarrese stated that\nthis option was a way to get us closest to the plan without losing the assets out there, as there is\ncopper mining, vandalism, and no funds to secure property. Mr. Tagami said that he\nhas\nexpressed this desire and that SunCal has beginnings of communication with the City. It is an\nongoing process, but they want to mind their role, focus on due diligence and underwriting, but\nsaid that when the time is appropriate, they would be prepared to engage in that dialogue.\nMember Matarrese asked if the appropriate time is now and if they are prepared to engage in that\ndialogue now. Member Matarrese expressed to the Board that they consider giving direction to\nmove this issue as a priority. Vice Chair Tam discussed that the heavy capital makes the council\nand the board reluctant to make investments for property we don't own. Mr. Tagami explained\nthat they often go at risk and are not asking the city to go at risk. They evaluate current\nincrement expense, have a good track record of delivering value, all of which requires a team\napproach. They will expend the time, energy and money. Chair Johnson asked if DSD wants to\nmove forward with interim adaptive reuse.\nDebbie Potter explained that the key components to the partnership and business deal is the\nleasing program and at what point to transition that leasing program. These discussions are\nunderway, and staff is interested in understanding what SunCal and Phil Tagami are proposing.\nTaking over the leasing program and expanding that program, renovating and identifying what\nuses can be derived from those if renovated. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, added\nthat there was also discussion of starting with restoring one building at a time.\nChair Johnson stated that there are lots of benefits to adaptive reuse prior to transfer and that we\nshould move forward. Member Gilmore asked how many of the 23 buildings are currently under\nlease, to which Ms. Potter replied that most are not, because they are in poor condition. Member\nGilmore discussed working something out with Suncal and Mr. Tagami for taking over historic\nproperties that are not under lease, to rehab and get them for productive use, and the sooner the\nbetter. Ms. Potter explained that we should continue the analysis, what they can expect for a\nrevenue stream, and how willing are they to go at risk for buildings we don't own. Mr. Tagami\nexplained that all properties need time on task; they need to take stock of the buildings, introduce\nthem back on marketplace. It will take lots of work, and there will be obstacles and tears shed,\nbut they are up for the challenge and there is no excuse not to engage.\nMr. Keliher wanted to make it clear that SunCal has not engaged staff in any kind of detail about\nthis particular issue, in response to Chair Johnson's request that SunCal communicate with staff\non more regular basis staff so they can have a better understanding of possibilities, and they are\nnot caught by surprise. Ms. Potter stated that she didn't intend to give that impression, and that\nthe issue just hasn't been discussed in great detail. She explained that SunCal and Tagami have\nto do their deal before they can come to the City with a proposal. The Board and staff were all in\nagreement that there are advantages to moving forward with rehabilitation on the structures that\ncan be saved, and to make it a priority to move forward on discussions and do it as quickly as\npossible.\nMember Matarrese proposed that the ARRA direct staff to get into discussions with\nSunCal and Phil Tagami tomorrow and bring an update back on what the discussions have\nbeen like and what the choke points are; and this issue can be discussed as a separate\nactivity that runs parallel to the development. All Boardmembers agreed.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-18", "page": 5, "text": "Vice Chair Tam expressed that the key to a successful project is flexibility in reacting to the\nchanging economic conditions. In the next decade there is some expectation that the sustained\ndownturn in economy will require job creation, and looking at the potential for self sustaining for\nenergy level for the entire island, maybe there are some partnerships with AP&T, such as a solar\nfarm, or other type of renewable energy source. Vice Chair Tam supports the plan, as it reflects\nand captures sentiment that we've been hearing throughout the community and public\nworkshops. Chair Johnson stated that there needs to be discussion about the phasing of public\namenities at some other appropriate point.\nFM - reiterate some comments from last time including that the plan needs work on\nenvironmental issues such as the working waterfront, which showers noise upwind. He\nexpressed that it's an odd place to put a neighborhood. He also mentioned not wanting to see\nplans that have sidewalk dining because it's freezing cold near the waterfront - and no water\nplay in park. He cited that there are plenty of lessons in town to learn from, discussing the Bay\nStreet, Emeryville situation where there is residential over retail and the problems that come\nfrom that type of development. Member Matarrese stated examples are all around that we should\nconsider, and would like the same level of detail in the final plan that has been given to\nresidential, given to commercial and light industrial.\nMember dehaan asked SunCal about a survey that they were conducting with Alameda residents.\nMr. Keliher clarified that the survey is preliminary and is sponsored by SunCal and not the City.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative.\n- Highlights of October 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. (Continued from the November\n5, 2008 Regular Meeting)\nMember Matarrese provided a brief presentation. He discussed highlights from the ARRA\nmeeting of Sept. 10th The BCT gave an update and of the fiscal year and their activities, and\nthere were comments on the transfer of FOST for site IR 15.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 11:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-12-02", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, December 2, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 11:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-C\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Petris Air Work Industries, Inc. dba\nAlameda Aerospace at Alameda Point.\nThis item was pulled from the agenda and not addressed. It was continued to the January\n7, 2009 regular ARRA meeting. (This item was subsequently submitted as an off-agenda).\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Approve the Community Reuse Plan Amendment and Legally Binding Agreement for the\nHomeless Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel\nThis item was continued to a Special Joint Meeting of the ARRA and Housing Authority\nBoard of Commissioners on February 4, 2009.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of November 6 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese did not attend the 11/6 RAB meeting and did not have a report. He was\nattending a Council meeting on 11/6.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-12-02", "page": 2, "text": "7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 11:19 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-01-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, January 7, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:25 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 5, 2008.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of November 18, 2008.\n2-C. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 2, 2008.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Mariusz Lewandowski dba\nWoodmasters at Alameda Point.\n2-E. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Alameda Soccer Club at\nAlameda Point.\n2-F. Authorize the Sale of Four Boston Whalers to NRC for $44,500.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions:\n0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of SunCal's Draft Redevelopment Master Plan.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, addressed several topics\nactively discussed in the community and clarified that tonight's update is for information only,\nneither staff nor SunCal has requested formal action on the Master Plan. It is an opportunity for\nthe community to comment on the draft Master Plan and for the ARRA Board to provide\nfeedback to SunCal. Because SunCal's plan is not consistent with the City's charter, as it\nproposes a mix of residential structures that include multi-family rental and condo projects, this\nmaster plan can only be approved by a vote of the people. SunCal anticipates placing its plan\non the ballot for the communities' consideration in November of this year, and the ENA requires\nSunCal to notify the City no later than April 30 if it plans to proceed with the ballot initiative.\nTonight's presentation is part of the ongoing community dialogue that will continue over the next\n18 months, as the City and SunCal negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)\nfor the long term redevelopment of Alameda Point. Two key issues have been the focus of\ndiscussion: 1) the concept of a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust for Alameda Point, and", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-01-07", "page": 2, "text": "2) the amount of the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) investment in the Alameda\nPoint project and whether or not that investment of redevelopment dollars adversely impacts the\nCity's general fund which is responsible for financing critical city services.\nMs. Potter discussed the Presidio conveyance model - a transfer from military ownership via\nspecial legislation to the National Park Service and was not subject to BRAC requirements - it\nwas determined that the same conveyance model is not feasible for Alameda Point. Alameda\nPoint is subject to BRAC, was previously screened for other federal agency uses, was screened\npursuant to the McKinney-Vento act for homeless uses, and is required to be conveyed at fair\nmarket value for private ownership and reuse. The ARRA is working with the Navy to negotiate\na conveyance term sheet to transfer the property and provide for its ultimate reuse as a mixed-\nuse community that generates jobs, provides housing for all incomes, and opens up the\nwaterfront and creates new recreational opportunities for Alameda and the region. To achieve\nthat goal, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SunCal.\nMs. Potter addressed the issue of tax increment funds, clarifying that there cannot be a pledge\nof tax increment funds without a DDA, approved by the City Council and CIC in public following\na public hearing, therefore, any approval of tax increment funding will only happen after input\nand participation from the community. If tax increment funds are raised through the sale of tax\nincrement bonds, those bonds are secured and repaid solely by tax increment funds generated\nin the Alameda Point Redevelopment Project Area (APIP), and in no way obligate the City's\ngeneral fund. Based on current projections of the property value to be created by the build-out\nof the master plan, staff anticipates that a maximum of $184 million of tax increment will be\ncreated over the life of the project. This number is well short of the $700 million being\nreferenced in the community. It should also be noted that large portion of the $184 million is\nrestricted to the production of affordable housing.\nFurthermore, several years ago, the City Council adopted a resolution stating that all base reuse\nactivities must pay for themselves and be fiscally neutral to the City's general Fund. The\nCouncil recognized the task of integrating former military property into the larger Alameda\ncommunity would have a cost in terms of a need for the increase police and fire services, more\ndemand on Parks and public libraries, and increased maintenance of new roads and\ninfrastructure, and that cost should be borne by the new development. SunCal's draft Master\nPlan is supported by a Business Plan that provides for fiscal neutrality.\nMs. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager, who presented the\ndraft Master Plan via Powerpoint presentation. Following the presentation, there were several\nspeakers who discussed various issues about the draft Master Plan.\nMember deHaan is concerned about some issues in the draft Master Plan, specifically regarding\nthe plans for residential development, the sea level rising, and transportation issues. He also\ndiscussed the plans for the Sports Complex and that the plan has not changed, except for the\nprice. He continues to have strong reservations.\nIn response to public comment, Member Gilmore asked SunCal to explain its financial viability,\nthe effect of the bankruptcies of other projects, predevelopment funding and where that money\ncomes from, what happens during the predevelopment period if SunCal doesn't come up with\nthe money, and how SunCal sees the financing unfolding once we get to a DDA.\nMr. Keliher explained that throughout ENA period, SunCal is required to reimburse the City for\nany expenditures, and deposit money to spend on predevelopment dollars. This is done every\nquarter and is audited. Once we get through the ENA period, and the DDA period, and", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-01-07", "page": 3, "text": "determine how to actually finance the project, once the land is conveyed, there are several\ndifferent mechanisms, including debt & equity. With regard to the bankruptcies on the other\nprojects that SunCal was the operator on, not necessarily the owner of, most all of those were\nLehman projects. When Lehman filed bankruptcy and decided to not fund SunCal, SunCal\ndecided, involuntarily, to throw each of those projects into bankruptcy in hopes of forcing\nLehman to start to fund those. These projects are independently financed and structured and\nhave absolutely nothing to do with the Alameda Point project.\nMember Gilmore reiterated the concern regarding SunCall's ability to fund predevelopment\nexpenses. Mr. Keliher explained that if SunCal defaults under the ENA and doesn't perform, it\nis simply over. He further stated that, to date, SunCal has deposited all the funds. Both\nMember Gilmore and Mr. Keliher clarified and confirmed that the ARRA is not obligated in any\nway to reimburse SunCal for the predevelopment funds that have been spent.\nThere was discussion about the historic structures. Mr. Keliher is in agreement with the Board\nthat it's not the wisest move to proactively rip down the structures, and that SunCal will work\nwith staff on working out a process of evaluating the best direction.\nMember Matarrese offered comments for consideration, including requesting detail of\ncommercial space, and what impact of those spaces would be with regard to traffic and truck\nroutes, and the industrial-type uses. Member Tam also asked about industrial uses, mixed-use\nand residential. Peter Calthorpe described another similar project in San Jose where there was\na\nbalance of use in the commercial, civic, and retail areas. He stated that industrial\ndevelopment needs to be treated in special way, explaining that it has not yet been determined\nwhether there are industrial users that are appropriate for this site and that should be part of the\nmix.\nMember Tam asked about the BCDC sea level rise, and the 24\" that one speaker mentioned.\nMr. Keliher responded that he has heard various levels, but that no one has come out with\nspecific number to design to, an issue that SunCal does not want to ignore. Member Tam\nstated that we are at the point of our best and last opportunity to provide an economic stimulus\npackage without public subsidies or a tax on our general fund. This draft Master Plan produces\neconomic growth, a realistic transit system, and that the phasing will make it flexible enough to\nrespond to varying economic conditions, whether it's 15 years, or the next 20-30 yrs. Member\nTam stated her appreciation to staff and SunCal that the plan has been vetted very thoroughly\nwith the community.\nMember Gilmore asked what would happen if the City breached its obligations under the ENA.\nDonna Mooney, Asst. General Counsel, replied that the ENA is a contract and if the City doesn't\nfulfill an obligation to it, it would be considered a breach of contract. SunCal would have a legal\nremedy to this breach, which could include asking a court to make us come back and continue\nnegotiating, or it could be that the contract is terminated and we give back the $1 million\ndeposit.\nMember Matarrese clarified that tax increment bonds are sold based on tax increment at the\ntime the bond is sold, not based on the development for which those bonds will spur. Ms. Potter\nconfirmed and explained that, typically, when you go to the market with debt and desire to raise\nmoney through the sale of bonds, the project has to be at least three years into its development\nso that the underwriters and folks interested in purchasing the bonds have an expectation of the\ntrack record and then projections about the increment that will be generated over the life of the\nproject.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-01-07", "page": 4, "text": "At Chair Johnson's request, Ms. Potter summarized the process and milestones of the ENA so\nthat the public understands that this is not the end of the process.\nThis report was for information only and no action was taken by the Board.\n3-B. VA/Navy Presentation Regarding the Navy/VA Federal-to-Federal Transfer at Former\nNAS Alameda.\nMs. Potter gave a brief overview about the 600 acres on western portion of Alameda Point\nproperty. The Navy and VA have been in discussion for many years about its plans for the\ndevelopment of the portion of the wildlife refuge property. She introduced Claude Hutchinson of\nthe VA. Mr. Hutchinson gave his presentation via Powerpoint to the Board and community,\nsummarizing the status of the fed-to-fed transfer The plans include a 50-acre above-ground\ncolumbarium, a site for a VA outpatient clinic, and a non VA-owned hospital. Other presenters\nincluded Patrick McKay of the Navy BRAC office; Dr. Ron Chun, VA outpatient clinic site\nmanager; Don Reiker, National Cemetary Assoc. regional director; Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset\nManager of the VA; and Jayni Alsep, the VA's environmental consultant from EDAW.\nChair Johnson clarified for the public that the ARRA is not a part of the transaction between the\nNavy and the VA, and has no decision-making power in this transaction. She stated her\nappreciation to the VA on its presentation and all its efforts for community involvement. Chair\nJohnson also stated that although the ARRA has no control over this issue, we might be able to\ncooperate if the VA was willing to look at other areas of the base.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of December 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese stated that the Dec. 4 RAB meeting was 1/2 Christmas party and 1/2 highlights\nof the coming year's projects.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)\nTuesday, February 3, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 12:10 a.m. (on 2/4/09) with Chair Johnson\n2-B\npresiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, and the Special\nCIC Meeting held on January 6, 2009. (City Clerk) [CIC].\n2-B. Recommendation to authorize the use of $350,000 of Tax Exempt Bond Funds from the\nMerged Area Bond (Funds 201.11 and 201.15) and appropriate the funds for use for the\nFleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Emergency Water Repairs and Electrical Upgrades\nat Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue; and authorize FISC Lease Revenue for additional\nannual support of the Fa\u00e7ade Grant Program. (Development Services) [CIC and ARRA]\nItem 2-B was pulled for discussion. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member\nMatarrese and seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes:\nAyes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.\nDiscussion of Item 2-B: Leslie Liittle, Development Services Director, summarized the project\nand asked the Board for consideration so that the project can get underway for construction in\nthe October timeframe. The request is essentially an appropriation of $800,000 that staff\nexpects there will be a trade of some funds between the FISC and the CIC. The tax exempt\nbonds will go into the FISC water project as a Public Works project and the FISC lease\nrevenues will come back to the CIC to be used outside of redevelopment project areas and\ndoes not have the same restrictions as redevelopment funds.\nRob Ratto, PSBA Executive Director, discussed the current improvement program on Park\nStreet and urged the CIC/Board to approve the money for the undergrounding, the fa\u00e7ade grant,\nand the FISC property.\nApproval of Item 2-B was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Vice-Chair\ndeHaan, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Recommendation to consider an amendment to the Lease Agreement of 2315\nCentral Avenue between the CIC of the City of Alameda, Lessor, and Alameda Wine\nCompany, LLC, Tenant. (Development Services) [CIC]", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Little gave a brief overview of Alameda Wine Company's request to amend their lease to\nchange their hours of operation. Staff is recommending no change to their lease at this time.\nThe tenant addressed the CIC explaining her request is due to financial reasons, stating that the\nhours of 11:00 a.m.- - 4:00 p.m. are the least profitable for her business.\nMember Matarrese motioned to follow staff's recommendation to keep the status quo and\ndefer any change to the Alameda Wine Company lease until such time that there is the\neventuality and risk of the business closing. Only at that time should this item be\nbrought back to the CIC. Member Gilmore seconded the motion and it was passed by the\nfollowing voice votes: Ayes: 3 Noes: 1 (Vice-Chair deHaan) Abstentions: 1. (Member\nTam)\n3-B. Recommendation to approve a Five Year Lease and Repayment Plan/Write-off with\nAC Hornet Foundation. (Development Services) [ARRA]\nMs. Little and Nanette Mocanu, Finance & Administration Division Manager, summarized the\nHornet's' repayment plan to alleviate their debt.\nThe Board gave direction to staff to bring this item back after revisions to the repayment plan to\ninclude that the Hornet provide: a new business plan, credible financial reports, evidence of\ncreditors, and address the issue of the benefit to the ARRA of moving the Hornet for profitable\nuse of Pier 3. The Board also requested that a representative from the Hornet attend the\nmeeting when this item is brought back before the ARRA.\n3-C. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Contract with Harris &\nAssociates for On-Call Services for Review of Land Development Entitlement\nApplications for Redevelopment of Alameda Point. (Development Services) [ARRA]\nThis item was continued to the next Regular ARRA meeting on March 4, 2009.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of January 8th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese requested the Board review the handouts regarding OU-5 and OU-2B\ntechnical details. The next RAB meeting is on Thursday, 2/5.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT - ARRA, CIC\nMeeting was adjourned at 1:22 a.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-03-04", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING of the\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nHOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC)\nWednesday March 4, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 10:30 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-B\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nCommissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Torrey and Chair Johnson\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Accept Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the\nHousing Authority of the City of Alameda Held Tuesday, January 6, 2009.\n2-B. Accept Housing Authority Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008. The\nHousing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of\nCommissioners accept the audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008.\n2-C. Authorize Submission of Application for Replacement Vouchers for Esperanza\nResidents.\nApproval of the consent calendar was motioned by Commissioner Matarrese and\nseconded by Commissioner Torrey and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 6\nNoes: 0 Abstentions: 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Hold a Public Hearing to Approve an Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Final Environmental\nImpact Report for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and Fleet\nIndustrial Supply Center; Approving an Amendment to the 1996 Naval Air\nStation Alameda Community Reuse Plan for the Main Street Neighborhoods\nSubarea; and Approving a Legally Binding Agreement for a Homeless\nAccommodation at the North Housing Parcel (LBA); and Approve a Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners Resolution Approving a LBA and Related\nMemorandum of Understanding.\nElizabeth Cook, Housing Development Manager, gave a presentation which was an\noverview of the North Housing Parcel project.\nLiz Varela, Executive Director, Building Futures for Women and Children (BFWC),\nstated that they are excited about the project, as it's a great opportunity for their clients\nto make change in a safe, stable housing, with support. Doug Biggs, Executive\nDirector, Alameda Point Collaborative, commented on a few points, stating that the\nprocess has resulted in a really strong plan, and that all partners came together to\ncreate a solid program which draws on the strengths of each provider, the Housing", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-03-04", "page": 2, "text": "Authority (HA) and BWFC. He's excited that this plan will permanently end\nhomelessness. He reminded the board that the Homeless Needs Assessment was\ndone a year ago, March 2008, and today, the needs for the homeless is even greater.\nHe addressed a couple of issues discussed in the presentation, including the site plan.\nHe commented that the drawing is only a small portion of entire site, and that the\ngeneral plan principles are met: housing is closer to the Tinker Ave. transit corridor,\nwhich makes for easy access to transportation and schools.\nRegarding the\nenvironmental clean up, Mr. Biggs stated that they are constrained by the ROD (Record\nof Decision), which limits the Navy's culpability. He discussed that in the worse case to\ncomply with ROD, the HA came up with a plan built into the funding mix, as well as a\nplan which is part of the service plan to set aside money for insurance. He assured the\nBoard that the project was made to be as risk-averse as much as possible\nMember Matarrese stated a few modifications to the recommendation, including making\nsure the eight acres stay contiguous, and that the Miracle League is specified within the\neight acres; that language is worked into the LBA that addresses if the remediation\ninsurance is cross prohibitive, we don't have to take title. Chair Johnson added the\nprovision that outside counsel, or counsel, should make any changes necessary to\nensure additional safeguards. Donna Mooney, ARRA General Counsel, summarized\nthat this is an ARRA motion approving the resolution (the addendum to final EIR),\namending the Community Reuse Plan, and approving the LBA as modified. The\nmotion was made by Chair Johnson, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed\nby the following voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.\nAs the HABOC, the recommendation was to approve the resolution approving the MOU\nbetween the Housing Authority, Alameda Point Collaborative, and Building Futures for\nWomen and Children; and approving the LBA as modified. The motion was made by\nCommissioner Torrey, seconded by Commissioner Matarrese, and passed by the\nfollowing voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which\nthe governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)\nNone.\n5.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n6.\nADJOURNMENT - ARRA, HABOC\nMeeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAlumaElidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-04-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, April 1, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 4, 2009.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the ARRA/HABOC of March 4, 2009.\n2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Antiques by the Bay,\nBuilding 13, at Alameda Point.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Antiques by the Bay,\nBuilding 459, at Alameda Point.\n2-E.\nAuthorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht\nCompany at Alameda Point.\n2-F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Building\n29, at Alameda Point.\n2-G. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Hangar\n22, at Alameda Point.\n2-H. Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council, BSA Sea Scouts, Ancient\nMariner Regatta.\nStaff requested to pull Items 2-E, 2-F, and 2-G. The balance of the consent calendar was\nmotioned for approval by Vice Chair deHaan, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by\nthe following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. LRA Presentation of Treasure Island Redevelopment - Jack Sylvan, San Francisco\nMayor's office.\nJack Sylvan of the San Francisco Mayor's office gave a powerpoint presentation of the Treasure\nIsland redevelopment project. After the presentation, Boardmembers asked questions\nregarding the Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA), its relationship with the Navy, and\nif they were able to disclose their purchase price terms. Mr. Sylvan replied that he is not at", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-04-01", "page": 2, "text": "liberty to discuss the term amount. The redevelopment challenges of the ARRA and TIDA are\nvery similar (transportation, density, etc.) noting that ARRA's Measure A and environmental\nissues are a greater challenge.\n3-B. Alameda Point Update.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview of\nSunCal's work over the past 60 days, including its work toward the March 26 submittal of its\nBallot Initiative. SunCal requested a Tidelands Summary be prepared. The summary was\nprepared by City Attorney's office and transmitted to City Clerk's office. Once the notice is\npublished, SunCal can begin its signature-gathering process to be completed by June 17. If the\nrequired number of qualified signatures is received, the City Council will have to take action to\nplace the initiative on the ballot by Aug. 7. Pursuant to the ENA, SunCal has until April 30 to\nelect whether they're going to formally move forward with the ballot process or submit an\napplication that is consistent with existing law. A second milestone to be completed by April 30\nis the required deposit to begin CEQA work. Staff anticipates coming back to the ARRA in May\nwith an award of contract for an EIR consultant. SunCal will also provide a presentation and\nsummary of the components of their initiative which will include a specific plan, community plan,\na Development Agreement, and various other amendments to the zoning ordinance and city's\ngeneral plan.\nMember Matarrese requested that the timeline of the process be posted on the Alameda Point\nwebsite.\nOne speaker, Ashley Jones, directed a question to Mayor Johnson regarding her ability to be\nimpartial regarding the Measure A issue as it pertains to the redevelopment at Alameda Point.\nMayor Johnson replied that the speaker time is for the public to comment on the item and not for\ndiscussion.\nJanet Davis expressed concern about the contamination and the safeguards in place before\ndevelopment begins. David Brandt explained to Ms. Davis that the agencies that are overseeing\nthe clean up are the EPA and the DTSC. Boardmembers also recommended Ms. Davis attend\nthe RAB meetings for more information on the environmental issues of Alameda Point.\nHelen Sause spoke in support of the SunCal initiative and encouraged Alameda citizens to read\nthe information and understand it before making a decision.\n3-C. Alameda Point Environmental Issues Update: Radiological Substance at West Shore\nof Seaplane Lagoon and Block of Oversize Debris at North Shore of Seaplane\nLagoon.\nThis update is being provided to notify the ARRA board of several recent discoveries made by\nthe Navy in conjunction with a couple clean-up projects in the vicinity of the Seaplane Lagoon.\nThe Navy is currently working on amending a current clean-up contract to deal with radioactive\nmaterial, and also further investigating the block of concrete. Staff recommends that the ARRA\nsend a letter to the Navy with specific requests to resolve these issues including: requesting that\nthe Navy, as part of the analysis that they do on the radioactive material, that they rule out any\npossibility that radioactive material could have come from anything other than the outfall that is\nin the vicinity which carried a lot of waste from several buildings that dealt with radium paint -\nand if they can't rule out that as the only possible source for that material - that they conduct a\nbase-wide radiological survey; the second request: that the Navy characterize the cement block\nand inform of their decision on how to dispose of the concrete debris.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-04-01", "page": 3, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nAiran Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, May 19, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 1, 2009.\n2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Extension for General Services\nAdministration at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Accept the Interim Executive Director's Statement of Emergency Regarding Expenditures\nfor the Fire at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Approve the Project Budget\nItem 2-C was pulled by Member Tam for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar\nwas motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed\nby the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.\nItem 2-C - Member Tam asked for clarification on whether or not the debris retrieved was\ntested. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, explained that the debris was tested by\nquarter, and not tested individually, because the intent is to haul everything off. Member Tam\nalso asked what kind of thresholds should be met to determine whether it was cleaned\naccurately. Ms. Little stated that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) set\nthe standards for the cleanup.\nVice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese expressed concerns that the ARRA is now footing\nthe $1.6M bill for the demo of the burned building. They discussed Catellus' DA which obligates\nthem to do demolition, which included this building. Ms. Little explained that they're not\nobligated to do the demo because they have not moved forward with any initial phase. She\nfurther explained that an issue such as this is an unanticipated cost which clearly demonstrates\nwhat these do to the fund balance.\nMember Matarrese requested that the cost be transferred to the project and that Catellus\nremain obligated to reimburse the ARRA. He requested the City Attorney provide feedback on\nthe proper legal options we have so that the project becomes encumbered. Terri Highsmith,\nCity Attorney, understood the direction and will provide the information requested.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of Item 2-C with the provision of receiving\nfeedback from legal counsel on the possibilities of encumbering the cost to the project.\nMember Tam seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes: 5\nayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 2, "text": "3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n4.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nVice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese attended the last RAB meeting and had\nconcerns about the Navy's cleanup direction - whether it is predicated on the PDC, or if\nthe Navy is remediating according to SunCal's concept plan. Member Matarrese\nrequested clarification of their method and also requested this item be agendized and\nbrought back to the ARRA at its next regular meeting.\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-06-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, June 3, 2009- 6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and\nChair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):\nProperty:\nAlameda Point\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and SunCal\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator and provided direction on\nnegotiations.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:15\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 3, 2009", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, July 7, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 8:20 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 3, 2009.\n2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Vigor Marine, LLC at Alameda\nPoint.\n2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht Co., Inc.\nat Alameda Point.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Puglia Engineering of\nCalifornia, Inc. at Alameda Point.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by Vice\nChair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of June 4th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese was unable to attend the June 4th meeting in which the OU-2 feasibility\nstudy was discussed. The July RAB meeting is cancelled, so Member Matarrese will report on\nthe August Meeting.\nMember Gilmore asked a question about the RAB's decision to have a facilitator from the Navy\nto assist in conducting effective meetings. She was curious of the genesis of the idea, since the\nRAB has been in existence for many years, why only now is the Navy providing a facilitator?\nRAB member Michael Torrey stated that this is not the first time that the Navy is providing a\nfacilitator, but that the previous ones had to be cut due to funding issues. George Brooks, the\nNavy's Environmental Coordinator, asked if there could be another facilitator. Member\nMatarrese explained that the RAB Board changed and agreed that it was a positive step for the\nRAB.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nVice Chair deHaan asked for an update on the SunCal milestones. Assistant City\nManager, David Brandt, stated that there is a payment requirement due on July 19th, , and\nqualified signatures, or an alternative plan, was due in mid September for the City Council\nto accept. The Navy requirement is now July 2010.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m., by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-09-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, September 2, 2009- 6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and\nChair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):\nProperty:\nAlameda Point\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and SunCal\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe Executive Director discussed price and terms regarding Alameda Point. No action was\ntaken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nSeptember 2, 2009", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-09-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-10-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, October 7, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 2, 2009.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 15, 2009.\n2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Three-Year Sublease Renewal for Piedmont\nYouth Soccer Club at Alameda Point.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners in\nBuilding 29 at Alameda Point Without a Waiver in Rent and a Right of First Offer for\nBuilding 29 Only.\n2-E. Amend the Contract and Project Budget for the Fire at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center by\nAdding $500,000.\n2-F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sales Agreement, and Approve Disposing of\nPersonal Property at Alameda Point - Proposed Sale of Ship Waste Off-Loading Barge.\nItem 2-D was pulled by staff and continued to the November meeting. Vice Chair deHaan\npulled Items 2-C and 2-E for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar (Items 2-\nA, 2-B and 2-F) was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member\nMatarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\nDiscussion on Item 2-C:\nLeslie Little, Economic Development Director, summarized the staff report. There were several\nspeakers. The speakers who were against the item were concerned about the soccer field and\nAlameda resources being ceded to another city. They questioned what their fees pay for and\nthe availability of the fields to Alameda's soccer teams.\nChair Johnson explained that the Jack London Youth Soccer League created and manages the\npool of fields to which all the different soccer clubs can schedule games. The fields are not\nexclusive and are open to all the communities at all times. The annual maintenance of the field\nat Alameda Point is $40,000. Piedmont soccer does the maintenance, upkeep, take on that\nresponsibility, and Alameda clubs still have use of all the soccer fields.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-10-07", "page": 2, "text": "Member deHaan was concerned that there would be a shortage of fields or available game-play\non the field for Alameda clubs. Dale Lillard, Park and Rec Director, explained that there has not\nbeen a shortage of fields, and any shortage experienced was only due to the water rationing\nmandated by EBMUD to help with the drought, not by any scheduling conflicts.\nMember Matarrese clarified that this particular field at Alameda Point is not a City-owned field -\nit still belongs to the Navy and it is not being ceded to another city, it is being leased. He further\nexplained that it is not any different than when the buildings are leased at Alameda point -\nleasing is not restricted to Alameda only - and if that land was not leased to the Piedmont\nsoccer club, and because Alameda's Parks and Rec department didn't have the funds to\nmaintain the field, it would be a weed field.\nThere was further discussion from the representatives of the Jack London Youth Soccer Sports\nLeague, Alameda Soccer Club, and the Piedmont Soccer Club. They answered questions\nposed by the speakers and the Board, and further expressed their continued support and\nmaintenance of the Alameda Point field for the benefit of all the youth soccer clubs.\nItem 2-C was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member Tam\nand passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\nDiscussion on Item 2-E:\nLeslie Little discussed staff's request to augment the existing budget for removal of fire debris of\nBuilding 6 by $500,000. She summarized that in late March, Building 6 caught fire. The initial\ndebris removal was done, but asbestos and other contaminated building materials were found,\nand the remaining concrete tower structures were unstable. We are eligible for a $200,000\ngrant from DTSC to offset the $500,000.\nVice Chair deHaan asked what the overall cost would be when complete; and if we were going\nto hold Catellus responsible to pay back the cost. Ms. Little stated the amount to be\napproximately $2 million by completion. She further explained that under their existing DDA,\nCatellus is responsible for the demolition. There has been discussion between Catellus and the\nCity regarding what their actual obligation for cost is beyond just the regular demolition, which\nwill not be resolved until there is another amendment to their DDA.\nMs. Little also stated that the City Attorney's office has looked into whether we could put a lien\non the property so that it couldn't transfer without this obligation. There is no way around it,\nhowever, as the language of the DDA specifies that we have to deliver the property to them\nclear of liens or encumbrances.\nMember Matarrese asked how quickly, after the $500,000 is allocated, will the demolition be\ncompleted. Ms. Little stated that it would be done immediately, and that the daily cost of\nsecurity will cease also. Member Matarrese stated that the Catellus DA clearly says that\nCatellus is responsible for demolishing this building. Since we demolished it for them, we need\nto assign this cost to them. Whatever the vehicle is we need to present it to Catellus.\nMember Gilmore asked what the modification to the ARRA budget is and if there are things we\nare not going to be able to do because of this $500,000 modification. Ms. Little explained that\nthere is no line item where these funds could be taken from, so staff proposed this would come\nback to the ARRA in a budget adjustment. The funds would come out of the ARRA's cash\nbalance, rather than what is usually referred to as a fund balance.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-10-07", "page": 3, "text": "Member Matarrese motioned to approve the allocation of the $500,000 to complete the\ndemolition, and added that the entire cost of the demolition be assigned to Catellus.\nMember Gilmore seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes:\nAyes: 5, Noes: o, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of September 3rd Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese said that the highlight of the meeting was an update and discussion on Site\n1, the far northwest end of the wildlife refuge and lower part of Northwest Territories. The Navy\npresentation refreshed the RAB on boundaries and milestones, the Navy's containment\npreference to use an engineered four-foot soil cover, and their path forward which included a\ntimeline to Record of Decision (ROD) and remedial action to begin in December of 2010. The\nRAB's discussion mostly challenged the assessment of that contamination - the fact that the\nsample site data was old and inadequate. Member Matarrese stated that discussions at the\nmeetings have been heated and required a facilitator. There are people knowledgeable enough\nto ask very technical questions and the bottom line is that no one is satisfied with the Navy's\nproposal to cap it with four feet of soil. Member Matarrese was not able to attend the October 1\nRAB meeting. The next meeting is Nov. 5.\nMember Tam asked what the Navy plans to do with the feedback and their plans to go forward\nwith capping, even to our objection. Member Matarrese explained that the Navy was supposed\nto have a final ROD by September 17th, but does not know if it has been published. The Navy is\nalso supposed to go through the pre-design work this December of whatever solution there\nmight be. ARRA's letter to the Navy stating the objection to the soil capping was also copied to\nthe Congressional delegation, which may garner a little more attention to slow this process\ndown and get a different resolution. Member Matarrese also complimented the ARRA's\nenvironmental consultant, Dr. Peter Russell, for the informative summaries of the RAB meetings\nwhich he provides to the ARRA.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-11-04", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, November 4, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:03 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 7, , 2009.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Vice\nChair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of October 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese did not attend the Oct. 1 meeting, but received a comprehensive listing\n(Alameda Point Site/Area Description) of Alameda Point IR Sites by name, by number, historic\nuse, current contamination status and future reuse. He asked that this list be distributed to\nother boardmembers. The next RAB meeting is tomorrow, 11/5.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, December 2, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and\nChair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):\nProperty:\nAlameda Point\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and SunCal\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe ARRA Board provided instruction to the Real Property Negotiator.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:50\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItura Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, January 6, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 12:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 2, 2009.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member\nMatarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of December 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese discussed the highlights of the December 7 RAB meeting, including that he\nreceived a preliminary report from Derek Robinson of the Navy stating that the large object\nin\nthe Sea Plane Lagoon is a concrete block with pier material, not hazardous waste. Member\nMatarrese requested that the ARRA write a letter to the Navy to remove the concrete block.\nMember deHaan asked if radiation was found on that piece. Member Matarrese replied that it is\nunknown and a primary reason why it should be removed. Member Matarrese also discussed\nthat the Navy wants to leave the radium contaminated sewer line in place under building 400,\nstating that removing it would cause the structure to be unsound. Member Matarrese, along\nwith RAB members insist that the sewer line has to be removed. Another important point\ndiscussed was that the University of Florida and Purdue University received a large DOD grant\nto conduct remediation development studies; this grant represents several hundreds of\nthousands of dollars and put Alameda Point remediation on the map.\nChair Johnson agreed that the ARRA send a letter to the Navy regarding the two key items:\nconcrete block removal, and contaminated sewer line removal.\nVice Chair deHaan discussed looking at the option of filling the area in order to bring back the\nshoreline. Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese agreed, stating that if the Seaplane Lagoon is\neventually going to be a Marina, and boating activities will be taking place there, it needs to be\ncleared out.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n02-03-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese discussed the visit to El Toro and Hamilton bases, particularly that the City\nof Irvine established a local development corporation to develop the Great Park. Member\nMatarrese would like to put an item on a future ARRA agenda to evaluate that particular option\nto see if it has utility for the ARRA or successor to the ARRA. He stated that Hamilton is farther\nalong than most other bases - there are lots of houses; 10 hangars in use, eight of which have\nbeen rehabbed for public and private, with two hangars remaining in the Coast Guard. Member\nMatarrese recommends looking for potential military use for the hangars at Alameda Point. He\nstated that the most important and striking feature of Hamilton was that they were taking the\nrunways and returning them to wetlands. Member Matarrese discussed that a wetlands option\nfor the west end of Alameda Point might be a superior option to bolster the shoreline with an\nengineering solution. The wetlands are a carbon sink, and there may be future carbon credits; it\nfilters runoff, provide better habitat for the environment and is a superior buffer to storm or wave\naction because it doesn't require maintenance.\nVice Chair deHaan discussed that some of the dredging from the Port of Oakland was used for\nestablishing that wetlands. Member Matarrese added that levies were built as well. Vice Chair\ndeHaan stated that getting \"tipping fees' is extremely important to jumpstart this type of\noperation.\nChair Johnson liked the idea of wetland restoration. Member Matarrese reiterated that the\nARRA remain insistent that the Navy scoop and remove Sites 1 and 2.\nMember Matarrese stated that there was concern expressed by two members of the RAB (one\nrepresentative from the EPA and one from the Audubon Society) of rumors that the Bay Trail\nwas in jeopardy, either from the Wildlife or the VA. Member Matarrese would like to find the\nsource to the rumor to see if it has any merit.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-02-03", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, February 3, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:15 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 6, 2009.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member\ndeHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of January 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese discussed the highlights of the January 7 RAB meeting, including a report of\nSite OU-2C which has a contaminated discharge line under a slab in Bldg. 400. The RAB\nrecommends it be removed, but the Navy is citing potential compromise to the structural\nintegrity of building. The second highlight was a report on the block of cement in the seaplane\nlagoon, to which the Navy made no comment. Member Matarrese would like a presentation and\ntechnical summary from the Navy of cleanup activities and costs, including dollar figures,\ncompleted to date. Member Matarrese stated that it is good for the community to understand\nthat remediation is an ongoing process. He will attend the next RAB meeting tomorrow (2/4).\nMember Gilmore asked if it was requested of the Navy to substantiate their claim about the\nstructural integrity of Bldg. 400. Member Matarrese replied that a letter was sent to them with\nthat request.\nRichard Bangert, speaker, supported the suggestion made by Member Matarrese calling for a\npublic presentation of the clean up activities at the base. He agreed that such a presentation\nwould benefit the community at large. He discussed the Record of Decision (ROD) document\nfor Site 1, explaining that it comprises 43,000 pages of data, emphasizing the need for the\ncommunity to have a deep understanding of the clean-up efforts. Mr. Bangert also\nrecommended that the regulatory agencies who oversee the clean-up be featured in the\npresentation.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n03-03-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-02-03", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Johnson agreed with Mr. Bangert that the regulatory agencies, including the Department\nof Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the\nWater board should participate in the presentation.\nChair Johnson further stated that the Board supports Member Matarrese's recommendation for\na public presentation regarding the remediation activities at Alameda Point.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were several speakers. Jean Sweeney suggested a before and after\" powerpoint\npresentation of the clean-up sites.\nJim Sweeney agreed with Richard Bangert and Member Matarrese about a presentation to the\npublic. Mr. Sweeney encourages educating the public about remediation, the plan, and what\ncan be done realistically at Alameda Point.\nGretchen Lipow - attends RAB meetings, was impressed with the bright, talented members and\nhow they interact with the agencies. Ms. Lipow invites the public to observe these meetings,\nstating that the group looks out for the communities' welfare.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nVice Chair deHaan discussed the Special Election of Feb 2nd regarding Measure B. There were\n14,000 votes cast - 85% NO and 15% YES.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJune Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-03-03", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, March 3, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nAbsent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2010.\n2-B. Approve a Third Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems,\nInc., Increasing the Budget by $60,000 to Provide Ongoing Negotiation Support for\nthe Redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by\nMember Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of February 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese discussed the highlights of the February 4 RAB meeting, including a report\non remediation and field work: The Navy is continuing to dig up and remove radioactive\ncontaminated storm drain lines from Bldg. 5, there is active groundwater treatments at two sites\nalong the Oakland inner harbor, north of Pier 1; and a petroleum contaminated groundwater\ntreatment recovery operation near the Atlantic avenue entrance. There was discussion\nregarding issues relative to the disturbance of nesting of migratory birds at the Bay Trail, and\nthat meetings with the Fish & Wildlife Service have been scheduled. There are expanded site\ninspections along the south east portions of Alameda Point to Hangar Row, on the western side\nof the lagoon. Lastly, there was discussion on RAB's purpose and processes governing the\nRAB, and how well the RAB communicates to the general public about clean-up efforts. ARRA\nwill have a meeting on May 6 to promote and highlight clean-up work. Regulators from the\nEPA, DTSC, and Water Board will attend. The meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010 at the\nMastick Senior Center. The RAB will hold their regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the Special\nARRA meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n04-06-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-03-03", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNo speakers\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese said that he and Chair Johnson attended the Association of Defense\nCommunities (ADC) conference in Feb in Albuquerque, NM. He stated that they participated in\nvarious sessions and will prepare notes highlighting topics discussed in the sessions, including\nbase conversion stories and reuse of former military bases that were better, similar, or worse off\nthan Alameda Point. Regarding the base conversion and reuse, the spectrum ran from rural\nconversion of an army weapons depot in Kansas, to a small village in Illinois. Member\nMatarrese stated that there were a lot of contacts and exposure to all branches of service, their\nexperts and their experience, including the Director of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.\nAnn Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director, expressed that she was pleased with the ARRA's\ninvolvement in ADC and that she, along with executive staff, was invited to sit on the host\ncommittee to plan the Annual ADC Conference taking place in San Francisco this year. The\nanticipation is that there will be more than 1000 people in attendance. She stated that the ADC\naccepted the ARRA's invitation to host an event at Alameda Point. She also said that the ADC\nis interested in having the ARRA do a forum on the base and its history, including all the\ndifferent elements and components on remediation, phase-out issues, and that it would be a\ngood case study in terms of how they can learn some lessons.\nMember Matarrese discussed two key items: 1) legislation on defense authorization bill, which\nhelp communities grapple with the cost of closed bases, and 2) the new Undersecretary's\ninitiative to deal with green approaches, sustainability, and alternative energy sources.\nMember Gilmore asked what the dates for the ADC Annual Conference were. Ms. Gallant\nreplied that it was early August, the 8th thru 11th. Member Tam reminded the Board of the\nCharter provision to make a conscious effort to go dark in August.\nMember Tam also asked if there was information on the status of conveyance of Treasure\nIsland. Jennifer Ott, Deputy Executive Director, spoke with the Project Manager of the Treasure\nIsland Development Authority (TIDA) and explained that TIDA was able to hammer out a very\nbrief term sheet, very similar to Alameda; and that now they are working on details. Nothing\nofficial has been presented and no funds have exchanged hands. Because of the economy and\nprovisions of that agreement, additional density (more units) on Treasure Island will be worked\nthrough with developer as well.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Member Matarrese.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, April 6, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 3, 2010.\n2-B. Approve a Third Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems,\nInc., Increasing the Budget by $60,000 to Provide Ongoing Negotiation Support for\nthe Redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by\nMember Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of March 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese discussed the highlights of the February 4 RAB meeting, including a report\non remediation and field work: The Navy is continuing to dig up and remove radioactive\ncontaminated storm drain lines from Bldg. 5, there is active groundwater treatments at two sites\nalong the Oakland inner harbor, north of Pier 1; and a petroleum contaminated groundwater\ntreatment recovery operation near the Atlantic avenue entrance. There was discussion\nregarding issues relative to the disturbance of nesting of migratory birds at the Bay Trail, and\nthat meetings with the Fish & Wildlife Service have been scheduled. There are expanded site\ninspections along the south east portions of Alameda Point to Hangar Row, on the western side\nof the lagoon. Lastly, there was discussion on RAB's purpose and processes governing the\nRAB, and how well the RAB communicates to the general public about clean-up efforts. ARRA\nwill have a meeting on May 6 to promote and highlight clean-up work. Regulators from the\nEPA, DTSC, and Water Board will attend. The meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010 at the\nMastick Senior Center. The RAB will hold their regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the Special\nARRA meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n05-06-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNo speakers\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese said that he and Chair Johnson attended the Association of Defense\nCommunities (ADC) conference in Feb in Albuquerque, NM. He stated that they participated in\nvarious sessions and will prepare notes highlighting topics discussed in the sessions, including\nbase conversion stories and reuse of former military bases that were better, similar, or worse off\nthan Alameda Point. Regarding the base conversion and reuse, the spectrum ran from rural\nconversion of an army weapons depot in Kansas, to a small village in Illinois. Member\nMatarrese stated that there were a lot of contacts and exposure to all branches of service, their\nexperts and their experience, including the Director of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.\nAnn Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director, expressed that she was pleased with the ARRA's\ninvolvement in ADC and that she, along with executive staff, was invited to sit on the host\ncommittee to plan the Annual ADC Conference taking place in San Francisco this year. The\nanticipation is that there will be more than 1000 people in attendance. She stated that the ADC\naccepted the ARRA's invitation to host an event at Alameda Point. She also said that the ADC\nis interested in having the ARRA do a forum on the base and its history, including all the\ndifferent elements and components on remediation, phase-out issues, and that it would be a\ngood case study in terms of how they can learn some lessons.\nMember Matarrese discussed two key items: 1) legislation on defense authorization bill, which\nhelp communities grapple with the cost of closed bases, and 2) the new Undersecretary's\ninitiative to deal with green approaches, sustainability, and alternative energy sources.\nMember Gilmore asked what the dates for the ADC Annual Conference were. Ms. Gallant\nreplied that it was early August, the 8th thru 11th. Member Tam reminded the Board of the\nCharter provision to make a conscious effort to go dark in August.\nMember Tam also asked if there was information on the status of conveyance of Treasure\nIsland. Jennifer Ott, Deputy Executive Director, spoke with the Project Manager of the Treasure\nIsland Development Authority (TIDA) and explained that TIDA was able to hammer out a very\nbrief term sheet, very similar to Alameda; and that now they are working on details. Nothing\nofficial has been presented and no funds have exchanged hands. Because of the economy and\nprovisions of that agreement, additional density (more units) on Treasure Island will be worked\nthrough with developer as well.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Member Matarrese.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-05-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nThursday, May 6, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Vice Chair deHaan presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\nAbsent:\nChair Beverly Johnson (arrived at 8:40 p.m.)\n2.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n2-A. Alameda Point Environmental Update - Presentation by the Navy and Regulatory\nAgencies.\nVice Chair deHaan introduced Jennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager, to open the presentation. Ms.\nOtt gave an overview on what will be presented: a summary of the environmental program, the\naccomplishments that have been made to date, funds that have been expended by the Navy to\ndate, as well as some of the economic development impacts of the process. The presenters\nwere Derek Robinson of the Navy, Anna-Marie Cook of the Environmental Protection Agency\n(EPA), and Dot Lofstrom of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).\nAfter the presentation, the Board discussed key issues with the presenters.\nVice Chair deHaan commented on the long process and gave a brief background on the\nremediation efforts. He thanked the community and past chairs for their continued support.\nMember Tam expressed her appreciation for the update and the amount of work & effort that\ngoes into the clean up. She asked how the funds are controlled and administered, who they\nflow through given the various jurisdictions involved (i.e., is the funding centralized through the\nBRAC and then through the other agencies) and how they are allocated through congressional\nauthorizations.\nDerek Robinson explained that he will get clarification on the funding process and will report the\ninformation back to Member Tam. He also clarified that the Navy's focus is not on recouping\nthe funds spent in the clean-up. Vice Chair deHaan discussed the change of philosophy\nregarding the remediation of Alameda Point. He clarified that the clean-up was under the\ncomplete control of the Navy, and that in 2000, the Navy allowed the developer to consider\nprivatized clean-up, and then it went back under the control of the Navy.\nMember Matarrese asked for more clarification about the process after a parcel is determined to\nbe cleaned to the level at which it was assigned - how notification, information and\ndocumentation is given to the next successor agency in order for them to continue the work. Dot\nLofstrom explained that there is an official administrative record that the Navy maintains and\ninformation & documentation will always be in the Information Repository. In addition, there is\nan informal repository that DTSC is maintaining through their Envirostore Database. There is a\nAgenda Item #2-A\nCC/ARRA/CIC\n06-01-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-05-06", "page": 2, "text": "certification process after a parcel has been cleaned. Ann Marie Cook of EPA further explained\nthis process: Once a site has reached a point where it is considered meeting the goals set for it\nto be cleaned, the Navy prepares a \"Remedial Action Completion Report' and the EPA, because\nit is a Superfund site, is required to make the determination that all clean-up action necessary\nhas been completed. The Navy then drafts a Finding of Suitability report to transfer that\nproperty.\nMember Gilmore asked for the status of the transfer process of cleaned VA lands and whether\nor not the Navy and the VA have reached a basic deal. Jennifer Ott explained that the transfer\nis moving forward, but awaiting approval from the administration to move forward. She stated\nthat at this time, there are no details of a basic deal, but she will keep the Board updated on any\nfurther developments.\nVice Chair deHaan asked about the status of remediation of the Seaplane Lagoon. Mr.\nRobinson stated that they are currently in Stage 1, which includes removing large debris piles\non the north side, and that Stage 2 will include remediating soils from the outlet of the storm\ndrain systems. Construction activities will start in Sep./Oct. 2010. Vice Chair deHaan also\nasked about Site 2 wetlands. He was concerned that the estimated cost of clean-up for Site 2\nwas approximately $100 million. Mr. Robinson stated that number seems high, and is more\nlikely $20 million - but will get the correct information to report back to the Board.\nThere were three speakers: Jim Sweeney discussed the potential adaptive reuse of Building 5.\nAccording to Ann Marie Cook, Building 5 is one million square feet, is 65 feet tall, and qualifies\nas a historical building. She managed to secure funding from an EPA pilot program and they\nare looking at costs associated with reusing portions of the building and demolishing other\nportions. She will be able to provide an update in three months, with a final report in about\nseven months.\nIrene Dieter, speaking on behalf of community, expressed her concern about lack of information\nand public relations to the community about all the remediation efforts and other activities\nregarding Alameda Point. Ms. Ott reiterated that there are monthly RAB and ARRA meetings,\nas well as notices on the City and Alameda Point websites.\nThe third speaker, Maria Hargrove, expressed concern about traffic and congestion in and out\nof Alameda Point. Chair Johnson informed Ms. Hargrove that the Planning Board meeting on\nMonday, May 10, will discuss traffic issues and present a plan.\nChair Johnson thanked all the presenters for coming together to coordinate this Special\nMeeting, and for the important information they provided in their presentation. She reiterated to\nthe public how important the information provided by these agencies is in helping the community\nunderstand all the activity and efforts in cleaning up Alameda Point.\n3.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJana Glidden\nTrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, July 7, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:21 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Responses to Questions Posed by the ARRA Board at the May 6th, 2010 Special ARRA\nMeeting Regarding the United States Navy's Environmental Program at Alameda Point.\nMember Gilmore requested additional information regarding the VA transfer and related\nagreement in response to the May 25, 2010 letter from the Navy which addressed the questions\nfrom the May 6th meeting. Staff stated that the information will be provided at the next ARRA\nmeeting.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member\nMatarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of June 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese gave an overview of the June 3rd RAB meeting. He discussed the summary\nof the radiological surveys and clean ups that have been done at Fed sites 1 and 2. He also\ndiscussed the Bldg. 5 storm drain which was removed because of radium contamination, and\nthat additional contamination was found in other storm drains; and site 17 sediment sampling of\nthe seaplane lagoon. Member Matarrese stated that there is a new schedule of evaluation and\nremediation that runs from Aug thru Nov of 2010.\nMember Matarrese discussed two commentary papers prepared by RAB member and physical\nengineer, George Humphreys. One of the papers was on basewide radiological contamination,\nand the other on site 25 ground water plume above the FISC near Coast Guard Housing,\nTinker-Stargell extension.\nThere is a Navy-sponsored tour of the sites on Saturday, July 17 from 9-11:00 a.m. Interested\nparties can go to the BRAC website to sign up.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n09-01-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nOne speaker, Jon Spangler, discussed clean-up of Alameda Point. He inquired what will happen\nwith everything that is above-ground at Alameda Point, the crumbling infrastructure, buildings\nthat were built with toxic materials, and contaminated buildings. He asked who will pay for\nremediation and up-keep if SunCal's contract is not renewed.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nConsidering the investigatory report against Councilmember Tam, Vice-Chair deHaan offered to\nattend the League of California Cities meeting as the alternate representative for the City of\nAlameda. He asked if this issue should be agendized for the next regular Council meeting.\nThe General Counsel clarified that because Vice Chair deHaan is already the alternate, no\nofficial action is required, but if the Board would like to take a vote, this cannot happen tonight\nand would have to be at another meeting. Member Matarrese concurred with Vice-Chair\ndeHaan and requested this issue be agendized for the next council meeting.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-09-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, September 1, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:03 p.m. with Vice Chair deHaan presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\nAbsent:\nChair Beverly Johnson (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 2010.\n2-B. Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 001 Amending the Order of Business of the\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting.\n2-C. Approve a Fourth Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.,\nIncreasing the Budget by $25,000 for Providing Negotiation Support for the\nRedevelopment of Alameda Point.\nMember Tam asked to pull Item 2-C, and moved to approve the balance of the Consent\nCalendar. Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by following voice vote\n- Ayes: 4.\nMember Tam requested more clarification on the amount of the EPS contract amendment and\nasked if SunCal was consulted on the overage, to which the Deputy City Manager,\nDevelopment Services, responded in the affirmative, explaining that the Negotiating Cost\nLedger has been made available to SunCal, and all invoices are included in the ledger.\nMember Tam asked what the ENA obligations are if the budget or scope is exceeded for\nconsultant contracts. The Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded that\ncontracts are separate from the SunCal Cost Recovery account, and the amount of the EPS\ncontract has not exceeded any Cost Recovery provisions under the ENA.\nMember Tam asked what the total budget was for EPS under the Cost Recovery Account, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded that the total budget for the\nquarter was approximately $372,000 for all consultants. Based on this clarification, Member\nTam stated she will abstain from this item.\nMember Gilmore asked if there are sufficient funds in the Cost Recovery account to cover the\noverage of the EPS contract amendment, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development\nServices, responded in the affirmative.\nMember Gilmore asked if there is a mechanism in place if charges are disputed, to which the\nDeputy City Manager, Development Services, responded in the affirmative.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-09-01", "page": 2, "text": "Member Matarrese moved for approval of Item 2-C. Vice Chair deHaan seconded the\nmotion, which carried by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1\n(Tam)\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Adopt a Resolution Supporting the United States Navy's Transfer of 549 Acres of the\nFormer Naval Air Station in the City of Alameda to the United States Department of\nVeterans Affairs for the Development of an Out-Patient Clinic and Columbarium.\nThe Deputy City Manager, Development Services clarified that the staff report combines an\ninformation piece which addresses the VA-NAVY deal, and requires no action; and a\n'recommendation' portion to adopt a resolution in support of property transfer to the VA.\nThe Deputy City Manager, Development Services summarized the background of the proposed\nVA project and property transfer.\nMember Tam inquired if it was necessary that the resolution exclude the 9.7 acres of the Least\nTern colony, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services explained that the 9.7\nacres is included, along with the buffer zone surrounding the Wildlife Refuge, which is more\nthan half of the 549 acres.\nThe Deputy City Manager, Development Services introduced Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset\nManager from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Mr. Jaynes gave a brief presentation of the\nstatus and projected timeline of the VA project.\nSpeakers: Proponents: Mark Chandler, Commissioner of the Alameda County Veterans Affairs\nCommission; Alex McElree, Operation Dignity; Aidan Barry.\nOpponents: Gary Bard; Leora Feeney, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge (FAWR)\nCommittee; Ron Barklow; Cindy Margulis; Michael Lynes, Golden Gate Audubon; Jean\nSweeney; Jon Spangler; Jim Sweeney; Adam Gillitt; William Smith, Sierra Club; Joyce Larrick,\nFAWR; Nancy Hird\nChair Johnson inquired if there is a specific location identified in the resolution for the VA\nproject, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in the negative,\nfurther explaining that the 549 acres are part of a formal request that includes the specific\nproperty.\nVice Chair deHaan clarified that there was discussion by the Board that the old Phase 3, the\narea near the USS Hornet, is a feasible location for the VA project, but there are still options to\nbe pursued.\nMember Tam inquired whether this Fed to Fed transfer from the Navy to the VA is going to\nhappen irrespective of whether or not the Board endorse it or oppose it, to which the Deputy\nCity Manager, Development Services responded that there is a process that has to be followed\nin order for the Fed-to-Fed transfer to occur, which includes NEPA and a Section 7\nConsultation. At this time, there are no guarantees that the process will be completed, but the\nassumption is that once the process is complete, the transfer will occur.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-09-01", "page": 3, "text": "Member Tam brought attention to the alternative resolution from the Golden Gate Audubon\nSociety which includes recognition that there should be protection for the Least Terns, based on\na biological opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife.\nMember Gilmore inquired why the VA was requesting 549 acres when they only require\napproximately 100 acres for their project, to which Mr. Jaynes replied that the Navy stated the\ntransfer would be the 549 acres or nothing. Mr. Jaynes further explained that it is not part of the\nVA's mission to manage that portion of property, so the VA is planning to have a separate\nagreement with the USF&W to oversee the remaining 449 acres, just as the Navy has the same\nagreement with them right now; the funding will come from the VA instead of the Navy.\nMember Matarrese inquired if the property was transferred to the ARRA, could the ARRA then\ndispose of it to the VA, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in\nthe affirmative. Mr. Jaynes expressed that there may be stumbling blocks without proceeding\nwith the BRAC process.\nMember Matarrese inquired whether the city will be able to participate in the VA project process,\nto which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in the affirmative.\nMember Gilmore requested more details from the VA regarding what their plans are with USFW,\nand the proposed annual budget, so that it does not become an afterthought.\nMember Tam suggested adding the language from the Golden Gate Audubon Society regarding\nthe protection of the Least Tern colony to the ARRA Resolution.\nVice Chair deHaan moved for approval of Item 3-A, with a revision to the Resolution\nadding \"Whereas, the City of Alameda will continue to prioritize the protection and\nconservation of the California Least Tern in its planning documents and decisions\".\nMember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote: 5\nAyes.\n3-B. Presentation: Alameda Point - 'Going Forward'.\nThe Interim City Manager announced that Item 3-C will be combined with 3-B into a single\npresentation. The presentation focused on a planning and assessment model for a going-\nforward approach for the development of Alameda Point. The Interim City Manager\nemphasized that this model is not a development plan, not a land use plan, or anything that\nrequires actual legislative decision, it is a recommendation and topic for discussion. The\npresentation included seven key components of this approach: lessons learned, new structure,\nstrategic alliances, development delivery systems, asset management police application,\nfinancial resources, and implementation schedule.\nVice Chair deHaan inquired who will comprise the team for this model approach, to which the\nInterim City Manager responded that familiar staff members, including the Deputy City Manager,\nDevelopment Services; the Planning Services Manager, Public Works Director; and various\nconsultants, will comprise the team.\nSpeakers: Adam Gillitt, Tony Daysog, Jean Sweeney, Jon Spangler, Alex McElree, Richard\nBangert, Nancy Hird, Doug Biggs, Gretchen Lipow.\nVice Chair deHaan remarked that the timeline for this plan is very aggressive, and suggested\ncompressing the timeline. The Interim City Manager clarified that the ambitious timeline doesn't", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-09-01", "page": 4, "text": "mean the base is going to be completed in 15 months, rather, the 15 months timeline is for\nplanning an assessment. The Board will have an opportunity to augment the timeline in more\ndetail after subsequent discussions and at subsequent meetings.\nMember Matarrese stated that on strategic alliances, the regulators should be recognized, the\nEPA & DTSC for clean-up, and USF&W for the environmental. Regarding policy questions,\nMember Matarrese also expects certain questions to resurface, i.e., finances and how tax\nincrement might be used, where the shortfalls are, how they will be backfilled, and where there\nare opportunities for early transfer for land that has already been cleaned up. Member\nMatarrese also suggested looking at the potential for having a citywide Project Labor Agreement\n(PLA) . There also needs to be discussion about jobs-housing balance, to give an opportunity\nfor public to weigh in on it. Member Matarrese remarked on the notion of using \"other peoples\nmoney\", i.e., funds from the Federal Government and MTC, as these funds could add up.\nMember Gilmore echoed Member Matarrese's comments and requested to see a primer of what\nthe lease environment looks like in the Bay Area, regarding the asset management application.\nIf the ARRA is renegotiating leases, it would be good to know realistically what the competition\nis, in order to have a more realistic expectation in terms of putting in more capital into a building\nor not.\nIn terms of leasing strategy, Member Tam inquired whether or not there is opportunity to adjust\nthe restriction in the LIFOC which says the Navy can give minimal notice to terminate a tenant,\nrecommending that it is something that should be pursued.\nThere was discussion about the amount of documents that have been produced and compiled\nthrough the years, and where they are made available to the public on the City and Alameda\nPoint websites. The Interim City Manager stated that staff is working on implementing a new\nAlameda Point website which will focus strictly on Alameda Point and the development project\ngoing forward.\n3-C. Presentation: Citywide Asset Management Strategy - Alameda Point Application.\n(This item was combined with 3-B)\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative\n- Highlights of August 5 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese stated that there were a number of interesting documents that were\npresented at the August RAB meeting, including a report on IR Site 35, which is action sites that\nare in the very center of the property being transferred to the ARRA; a presentation on\ngroundwater remediation at OU-2A, which discussed clean up; and communications from the\nRAB to the Navy. Member Matarrese remarked that the most interesting handout was an\nabstract done in concert with the Navy, EPA, Shaw Group (the contractor) and federal money\nfrom a SERDP grant through the University of Florida, Gainesville. The abstract depicts the\nresults of a method of clean up of TCE (trichloroethene), Plume 4-1. Member Matarrese stated\nthat this should be of interest to Alameda because it is being published in a scientific journal, it\nbrings focus on what is going on at Alameda Point, and creates notoriety on methods that could\nbe used at other bases. Handouts were provided to the Clerk for copies to be made and\ndistributed.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-09-01", "page": 5, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAiran Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, October 6, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 1, 2010.\n2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Jim Bustos Plumbing, Inc., Building\n612, at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with Russell\nResources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term\nfor 12 Months and Adding $140,000 to the Budget.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for NRC Environmental Services, Inc.\nBuilding 616 and Yard D-13, at Alameda Point.\nVice Chair deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded\nthe motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of September 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese was not able to attend the Sept. 2 meeting but received materials regarding\nremediation activity in progress with a new technology, and a brief report on the University of\nFlorida study of the remediation technique.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A. Presentation on \"Going Forward\" Community Forums for Alameda Point", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 2, "text": "The Planning Services Manager gave an oral presentation on the schedule of the Alameda\nPoint Community Forums, an initial eight month public outreach effort of the first phase of\nplanning, which would end in June 2011 and restart the environmental review process. The\nPlanning Services Manager explained that while the City of Alameda is doing a CEQA\ndocument EIR, the Navy will be doing a NEPA document. The Navy process won't start until\nthere is a project description or general description of the City's plan. The goal is eight months.\nThe eight-month schedule starts with a series of community outreach efforts, including\ncommunity workshops and internet outreach. The tentative schedule of the first three meetings\nis: November 9 at the Grand Pavilion, November 18 at Mastick, and December 8 in west\nAlameda. These workshops and key components of each meeting will be consistent from\nmeeting to meeting.\nThe Planning Services Manager summarized the six key areas as noted in the staff report: 1)\nCommunity Facilities, 2) Land Use Mix, 3) Streets, Parks, and Open Space, 4) Transportation\nAccess, 5) Architectural Character and Building Types, and 6) Historic Character and Adaptive\nReuse.\nThere are plans for a Tenant Forum in the spring focused on economic development strategy, a\nDeveloper and Business Forum, and discussions with each of the Boards and Commissions. A\nsummary will be presented to the ARRA Board in March 2011, and a project description in June\n2011.\nMember Gilmore requested an overview of where Alameda and the Bay Area stand in the\ncommercial and industrial real estate market. The Interim City Manager discussed the\napplication of a citywide real estate management policy which will include the information\nMember Gilmore requested about comparable leases.\nMember Tam requested an evaluation of internal competition, i.e., Marina Village VS. Alameda\nPoint.\nMember Matarrese discussed the commercialization and industrialization approach to\ndevelopment at Alameda Point, stating that the markets already out there are not the typical\nsuburban business park, not the type of businesses that would go into Marina Village, i.e., NRC\nand supporting industries, Spirits Alley, the maritime industry. Member Matarrese also\ndiscussed the jobs housing, and that job creation should drive it, stating that Alameda Point will\nnever be the rest of Alameda and probably shouldn't be, because it is industrial. Alameda Point\nshould reflect what it was and people will look at it in a different way.\nVice Chair deHaan concurred with Member Matarrese, stating that Alameda Point has a\ndifferent architectural design and that the development should maximize the unique venue out\nthere, and that folks should not get caught up in that it has to look like the rest of Alameda.\nMember Gilmore recommended evaluating and targeting the types of businesses and industries\nthat would value the asset of Alameda's own electric utility.\nMember Tam inquired a status report on communications with the Navy and if they were aware\nof the \"Going Forward\" plan, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services\nresponded in the affirmative, stating that staff met with the Navy last week. The Navy produced\nconveyance objectives and stated that they want to help facilitate conveyance and interim\neconomic development. The Interim City Manager stated that she will meet with the Navy's top\nmanagement every 90 days for a status update.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 3, "text": "Member Tam inquired if there was opportunity for Alameda to get funding for the EIR process.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that\nstaff has discussed funding possibilities with the Navy. There are some technical issues as the\nNavy has a contract for their NEPA process, and the City has a CEQA contract, but it may be\npossible to combine the processes so that it is cost efficient.\nMember Tam inquired if there are synergies between the sister federal agencies (Lawrence\nBerkeley Lab is with the Dept. of Energy, and the Veterans Administration has close ties with\nNavy). The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that, regarding the VA, the\nNavy understands that there has to be coordination to the extent that City staff can work with\nthe VA to leverage their infrastructure and develop that relationship, not just in terms of\nregulatory process, but also with actual physical improvements and infrastructure. With regards\nto the Lawrence Berkeley Lab's requests for proposals for land to host their second campus, the\nCity is prepared to submit a proposal in coordination with the Navy.\nThe Interim City Manager added that the City is prepared to respond to the Lawrence Berkeley\nLab RFP process with a very competitive proposal. There are opportunities to have strategic\nalliances as a result of the DOE and the Navy that makes Alameda Point uniquely competitive.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff will be providing the Board\nwith updates at the monthly ARRA meetings.\nVice Chair deHaan inquired if the Navy is willing to do phased conveyance. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services explained that the Navy is exploring the boundaries, the pros\nand cons of phased conveyance, and that the Navy is open and listening to ideas.\nThere was discussion from the Board about the management of the utilities at Alameda Point\nand whether there was a formal decision made about it. The Assistant General Counsel -\nARRA stated that there has never been a plan that the City would operate any of the utilities at\nAlameda Point other than the electric utility.\nMember Matarrese requested that the facts of this matter be brought back to the Board.\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese attended the liaison committee meeting between AC Transit and the City\nand discussed the series of cuts, including reduction of services for Lines O, Line 51A, and Line\n21, and the discontinuation of Line 851. He was most concerned about Line 31 (the only bus\nservice to the Alameda Point Collaborative and to west of Main St) which will be discontinued on\nweekends. Member Matarrese requested that the City insist that Line 31 be continued on\nweekends.\nThere was discussion by the Board of SunCal's involvement in the political arena.\nBoardmembers expressed their dissatisfaction and displeasure, denouncing SunCal's efforts,\nstating that the personal attacks on staff members and elected officials to influence any political\ndebate or election should not be tolerated.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 4, "text": "9. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItema Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, November 3, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 2010.\nMember Matarrese moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair deHaan\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Consider Request from Alameda Point Collaborative to Support their Community\nPlanning Efforts by Reimbursing Unpaid SunCal Consultant Expenses and\nCollateralizing a $50,000 Loan for Relocation Planning Studies Should Funds from\nPrivate Development Be Unavailable within 36 Months.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided an overview of the staff report.\nChair Johnson inquired if the expenditure is considered a predevelopment cost for SunCal, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager - Development Services answered in the affirmative. Chair\nJohnson inquired if staff has made efforts to have SunCal fulfill their commitment for payment.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the Alameda Point\nCollaborative (APC) has tried diligently, without success, to have SunCal fulfill its commitment.\nChair Johnson recommended continued efforts to pursue SunCal and inquired why funds from\nthe SunCal escrow account are not being used to pay this bill. The Executive Director\nexplained that the predevelopment escrow account is for obligations that SunCal has to the City\nand that the terms of the escrow account do not allow the City to direct the escrow agent to pay\nany invoices. Also, the City cannot interfere in the contractual relationship between SunCal and\nAPC.\nDoug Biggs, Executive Director of APC further explained that he has contacted SunCal multiple\ntimes to request payment, and the responses provided no resolution to the problem and\npayments have not been made. Chair Johnson asked Mr. Biggs if APC has filed a lawsuit\nagainst SunCal to collect the funds owed. Mr. Biggs explained that the contract SunCal\nrequired APC sign has a no-lawsuit clause and that APC would have to go through mediation.\nChair Johnson inquired whether APC has demanded mediation pursuant to its contract, to\nwhich Mr. Biggs responded in the negative. Chair Johnson recommended that APC go through\nthe binding arbitration process.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 2, "text": "Member Matarrese commented that SunCal had no problem spending approximately $50,000\non an election mailer a month ago. Member Matarrese supports APC's request, but would like\nto require that APC start the proceedings on their contractual remedy to the outstanding bill.\nMember Gilmore requested an update and report on the status of the predevelopment costs,\nand of the ARRA budget. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Member\nGilmore and the Board that staff will incorporate the ARRA budget and Predevelopment costs\ninformation into the update/staff report that will be presented to the Board in January.\nVice Chair deHaan inquired how the APC will pay back a $50,000 loan. Mr. Biggs explained\nthat the Project Implementation Loan (PIL) is from the Corporation for Supportive Housing.\nTraditionally, these loans are paid off by development fees, but since the development plans for\nAlameda Point are uncertain at this time, APC is asking the City to back them up.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the predevelopment planning\ncost will be wrapped into the total cost of the project and financed through every available\nfunding source to make the consolidation and relocation work.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler spoke in support of APC's request.\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the recommendation to collateralize $50,000 for\nthe pursuit of the planning study, with the requirement that the APC formally invoke their\nremedy in their contract in pursuit of reimbursement by SunCal. Member Matarrese also\nrequested that the work done by the contractor be under public domain so that it is not\nproprietary to APC since it is being underwritten by the ARRA. Vice Chair deHaan\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of October 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese did not attend the October 7th meeting but will attend the RAB meeting on\nNov. 4. Member Matarrese provided comments on Dr. Russell's highlights, stating that most of\nthe activities described are actual remediation activities. He called particular attention to the\nrecord of decision on Site 2 which is the southwest portion of the base. There was discussion of\na cap and cover for that contamination. Member Matarrese would like Dr. Russell to\nrecommend a strategy to make sure anything that is radioactive is removed from Site 2.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A. Presentation on Request for Qualifications for a Resource Team for Redevelopment\nof Alameda Point.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief summary on steps staff is\ntaking to move the going forward process. In the next week or two, staff will send out a Request\nfor Qualifications (RFQ) for land use planning, urban design, sustainable green design and\ninfrastructure planning, civil engineering, transportation planning, fiscal impact land use", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 3, "text": "ARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-12-01", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, December 1, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:01 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 3, 2010.\n2-B. Approve a Waiver of License Fees for American Red Cross, Bay Area Chapter at Building\n8.\nMember Gilmore moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded\nthe motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Designate a Member of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board to\nServe as the New Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Representative.\nVice Chair deHaan offered to serve as the RAB representative.\nMember Gilmore moved for approval to appoint Vice Chair deHaan as the new RAB\nrepresentative. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. Effective first RAB meeting in January 2011.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of November 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese addressed three key points: 1) The Navy will be revamping the records\nRepository, including all of the Records of Decision (ROD), environmental studies,\npresentations, and information on the history of characterization; 2) there was a presentation on\nthe draft final site investigation of the Federal Parcel Transfer, the south west portion of the\nbase. The Navy is completing the surveying; 3) Member Matarrese would like Member deHaan\nand staff to continue tracking Sites 1, 2, & 32 on the north west side. These sites are the most\nvulnerable parts of the base in that they have high ground water, are susceptible to sloughing\noff into the bay, and are replete with radium T26 contamination. Member Matarrese stated it is\nimportant the City take a position that the Navy should not leave any detectable radiation on the\nsite.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-12-01", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A. Alameda Point Community Forums Update.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a presentation and an overview of the\ncommunity forums. She provided a link to the workbook that people can participate in the going-\nforward process: ww.alamedapoint-goingforward.com\nSpeakers: Philip Tribuzio, Henry Hernandez\n6-B. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board Composition: Options for New\nStructure (continued from November 16, 2010).\nThe Interim City Manager provided a presentation to update the Board on the 'Going-Forward\"\nplan.\nSpeakers: Honora Murphy, John Knox White, Anne Spanier, John Spangler\nThere was confusion among the public regarding the topic of Item 6-B. Member Tam explained\nthat the confusion comes from the wording of the item. The item is an update of the Going-\nForward plan, and not a recommendation to change the ARRA Board Structure. Chair Johnson\nfurther clarified that this item is not before the Board for a decision, and that the Interim City\nManager presented the item as an introduction of the concept, which the Board could either\npursue or abandon.\nMember Gilmore expressed concern that there were advisory groups for Alameda Point that\nwere active for many years [Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG), Alameda Point Advisory\nCommission (APAC)], but that they were ultimately dissolved by the ARRA. Member Gilmore's\nconcern was that expanding the ARRA Board meant putting important decisions in the hands of\nnon-electeds.\nVice Chair deHaan expressed concern that he didn't want his elected position to be undermined\nby introducing a new structure or re-establishing an advisory group. It would be counter-\nproductive to the long-standing mechanisms currently in place.\nMember Tam premised her statement by requesting that her comments be taken in the context\nthat she is giving her opinion, and not trying to develop consensus for direction. Member Tam\ncommented that the ARRA's amended bylaws and JPA included provisions to appoint an\nadvisory body, not a voting body. Member Tam suggested an approach that included the parks\nand school districts (EBRPD and AUSD), the Peralta community; as they all have their own\ngoverning boards. The representatives from each of these agencies would have accountability\nand would foster democracy. Member Tam stated an expansion of the ARRA Board is\nsomething that should not be pursued.\nMember Gilmore and Vice Chair deHaan agreed with Member Tam and support the idea of\nincluding other stakeholders.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-12-01", "page": 3, "text": "The Interim City Manager suggested adding an element to the process -- a community forum for\nprinciple stakeholders and other governmental agencies/bodies focused on government\nregulations.\nMember Tam requested that this issue be included as a future item where the Board can give\ndirection. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that it will be placed on the\nFebruary agenda.\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Gilmore reminded staff that she requested a presentation regarding the commercial\nreal estate market as it exists.\nVice Chair deHaan stated that the ARRA should be involved in the City of Oakland's\ndiscussions regarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Oakland A's stadium in Jack\nLondon Square. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Vice Chair\ndeHaan that Alameda city planning staff is aware of the NOP and will be following it.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-01-05", "page": 1, "text": "1\nUNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, January 5, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:02 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Marie Gilmore\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Beverly Johnson\nVice Chair Rob Bonta\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-001) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 2010.\n(*11-002) Approve a Waiver of License Fee for Michaan's Auctions for Use of Portions of\nBuilding 20.\nMember deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-A of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam\nseconded the motion, which carried by voice vote - 4, Abstentions - 1 (Bonta).\nMember deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-B of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or\nadopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-003) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of December 2, 2010 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember deHaan did not attend the December 2, 2010 RAB meeting and has no report.\nMember deHaan will attend the next RAB meeting on January 6, 2011 and will provide a report\nat the February ARRA meeting. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services will also\nattend the January 6th RAB meeting.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-004) Mayor Gilmore asked the Deputy City Manager - Development Services to provide an\nupdate on the Lawrence Berkeley Lab (LBL) RFQ for a 2M square foot campus, with Alameda\nPoint in consideration. The RFQ was sent out on January 3 and is due March 4th. Staff and\na", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-01-05", "page": 2, "text": "2\nconsultant team are working together to respond to the RFQ. Placeholders have been put on all\nCouncil/ARRA agendas before the March due date in case policy direction is needed. The\nDeputy City Manager - Development Services summarized the RFQ, stating that the initial\nphase is for 500,000 sq. ft. of space. Staff is working closely with the Navy (property owners)\non policy issues that may need to be discussed with the Board. The short list will be in April.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services will discuss the developer solicitation\nprocess on the 18th in response to the RFQ, and before the short list. Other bases have been\njump-started by large institutional user like LBL, it is a great catalyst and opportunity to get\nAlameda Point started.\nMember Johnson asked about the location and competitors. The Deputy City Manager\n-\nDevelopment Services responded that the location was very specific: 20 - 25 minutes from\nblackberry gate; and that the biggest competitor is LBL's own property at Richmond Gild\nStation, 90 acres along the waterfront. The cities of Berkeley and Emeryville are also included.\nMember deHaan inquired if LBL is looking for land site or adaptive reuse. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services explained that since LBL needs state of the art R&D facilities,\nthey want to find new construction. In initial conversations, the area that stands out is the area\nsouth of Atlantic. Construction would start in July 2013 in areas without cleanup issues. Chair\nGilmore requested the RFQ be posted on the City's website so that the Board can access it and\nbe prepared to get questions answered.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the Golden Gate Yacht Club and\nOracle Racing announced that the America's Cup #34 will be held in San Francisco in 2013. In\nanticipation of the event, staff sent event organizers a letter reemphasizing the city's support for\nthe San Francisco bid, and where Alameda can be helpful, i.e., host supportive services on\nAlameda Point for the America's Cup - hangars, ferries, potential economic benefit, strong\nmarine industry, sailing syndicates, and being involved in the planning process.\nMember deHaan asked if the Board is taking the lead with regard to the community support\nefforts, or if there is a separate professional organization taking the lead. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services replied that it has been a cooperative effort - specific\ncommunity members are involved in the maritime and sailing world and have the connections\nthat staff doesn't. There are shared ideas and support. The City and staff lends credibility as a\ngovernment entity to their interests.\nThe Acting City Manager discussed the website which was developed by a community member\nwho is connected to the sailing world and is leading the charge, working with the City for bigger\nmobilization in support of America's Cup #34. The business community wants to get involved,\nand a partnership of residents, business and the city could help bring some aspect of the event\nto Alameda.\nMember Bonta commented on the amazing efforts from the community, recognizing Jack\nBoeger and Bob Naber. Member Bonta stated that he looks forward to working with staff and\nthe community to maximize this opportunity and realize the full potential economically and\notherwise.\nMember Tam requested to be informed of any opportunities for the elected body to get involved.\nChair Gilmore requested that updates of the event be placed as a regular item on the ARRA\nagenda.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-01-05", "page": 3, "text": "3\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\n(11-005) Referral from Chair Gilmore to change the order of the ARRA meetings.\nMember Johnson moved to approve the referral to change the order of the ARRA\nmeetings. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\n(11-006) Member Tam commented that with the emerging opportunities, the ARRA should focus\non reshaping its Going Forward process and be more \"shovel ready\"- more prepared with\nproperty, parcels, and infrastructure to maximize its competitiveness at Alameda Point.\nChair Gilmore requested a timeline of the Going Forward process so that the Board and the\npublic can makes comments and any changes necessary. The Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services stated that an update will be presented at the 2/2 ARRA meeting, and\nthe ARRA predevelopment budget would be presented at the 2/15 mid year budget adjustment.\nMember deHaan asked if staff has interfaced with the new owners of Catellus, TPG Capital LP.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that the Economic Development\nDirector and City Manager were getting up to speed with the new partner. A designated project\nmanager is working with staff. TPG Capital will likely need to come to the Council/CIC because\nthey are changing the development entity in agreement with the CIC. The Deputy City Manager\n- Development Services discussed that there will be a staff report, update, and presentation\nfrom the new partner in the next couple of months.\nMember deHaan inquired about the interview timeline for the Alameda Point RFQ consultants.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that there were two days of\ninterviews with four consultants: real estate economics, master planning, sustainable design\nand green infrastructure consultants, and transportation consultants. Contracts will be\nnegotiated in January and will be brought back as part of the mid year budget adjustment to\ndemonstrate to the ARRA how the project will be paid for. There are also plans to come back\nwith community feedback in March.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-02-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, February 2, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.\n(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-013) Endorse \"Going Forward\" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going\nForward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public\nWorks Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and\nproject description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's\nenvironmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of\nconveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major\nentitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands\nExchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The\nworkbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a\nsummary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled\nnext week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The\nfirst and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and\na team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,\nenvironmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM\nRealty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for\nlonger term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State\nLands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There\nwill be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from\nthe Navy.\nMember Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of\nan RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property\nmanagement agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property\nmanager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done\nyet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-02-02", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and\nwould like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope\nfor an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as\nthere is an economist on board.\nThe project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,\non their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative\n(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their\nlonger term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be\nimplementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and\nroutes at Alameda Point.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be\ndiscussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.\nThe Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.\nMember Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park\nDistrict (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the\nEBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.\nVice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides\nspecificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore\nalso support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated\nthat the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.\nSpeakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,\nGretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.\nMember deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point \"Going Forward\" Process.\nMember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National\nLaboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve\nIssuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley\nNational Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning\nServices Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish\nBalachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the\nfirst draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to\nfinalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)\nDeveloper RFQ.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the\ndecision-making process and selection of development team.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-02-02", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and\nprivate development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of\ndevelopers to put forth recommendations.\nMember Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.\nMember Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.\nThe Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process\nthat would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the\ndesign expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a\nnormal design and review process.\nMember Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate\ndevelopment experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer\nevaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was\nnot required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to\nweigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a\ndisadvantage.\nSpeakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.\nVice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time\nperiod and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the\n$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800\njobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on\nfacilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those\nhost communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial\nphase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the\nOakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-\ncost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred\nto LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of\nConveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it\nwill be title going to LBNL.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what\nwere the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create\nsome uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services\nManager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.\nVice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu\nof other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,\nreduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of\nthe initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.\nMember Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to\ngenerate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development\nmanager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the\ntertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,\nshopping, and sales tax.\nThe Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-02-02", "page": 4, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not\npropose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on\npotential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to\nthe table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the\nfinancial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon\nbecause there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.\nMember Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of\nother incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented\nthat owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has\ndiscussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns\nabout load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.\nStaff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is\nshort listed.\nMember Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the\nuser goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of\nAlameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,\nwhich was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL\nscenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.\nChair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The\nActing City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.\nMember Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer\nfor the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square\nfeet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the\ncenter and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the\nenvironment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)\ncement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that\nhe is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of\nknowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.\nThe RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member\ndeHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going\nForward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be\nable to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.\nMember Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy\nduring the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff\nwould ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.\nSpeaker: Gretchen Lipow\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-02-02", "page": 5, "text": "None.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-03-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, February 2, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.\n(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-013) Endorse \"Going Forward\" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going\nForward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public\nWorks Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and\nproject description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's\nenvironmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of\nconveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major\nentitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands\nExchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The\nworkbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a\nsummary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled\nnext week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The\nfirst and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and\na team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,\nenvironmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM\nRealty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for\nlonger term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State\nLands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There\nwill be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from\nthe Navy.\nMember Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of\nan RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property\nmanagement agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property\nmanager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done\nyet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-03-02", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and\nwould like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope\nfor an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as\nthere is an economist on board.\nThe project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,\non their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative\n(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their\nlonger term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be\nimplementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and\nroutes at Alameda Point.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be\ndiscussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.\nThe Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.\nMember Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park\nDistrict (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the\nEBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.\nVice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides\nspecificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore\nalso support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated\nthat the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.\nSpeakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,\nGretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.\nMember deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point \"Going Forward\" Process.\nMember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National\nLaboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve\nIssuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley\nNational Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning\nServices Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish\nBalachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the\nfirst draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to\nfinalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)\nDeveloper RFQ.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the\ndecision-making process and selection of development team.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-03-02", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and\nprivate development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of\ndevelopers to put forth recommendations.\nMember Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.\nMember Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.\nThe Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process\nthat would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the\ndesign expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a\nnormal design and review process.\nMember Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate\ndevelopment experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer\nevaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was\nnot required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to\nweigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a\ndisadvantage.\nSpeakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.\nVice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time\nperiod and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the\n$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800\njobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on\nfacilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those\nhost communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial\nphase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the\nOakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-\ncost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred\nto LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of\nConveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it\nwill be title going to LBNL.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what\nwere the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create\nsome uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services\nManager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.\nVice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu\nof other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,\nreduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of\nthe initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.\nMember Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to\ngenerate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development\nmanager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the\ntertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,\nshopping, and sales tax.\nThe Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-03-02", "page": 4, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not\npropose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on\npotential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to\nthe table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the\nfinancial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon\nbecause there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.\nMember Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of\nother incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented\nthat owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has\ndiscussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns\nabout load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.\nStaff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is\nshort listed.\nMember Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the\nuser goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of\nAlameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,\nwhich was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL\nscenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.\nChair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The\nActing City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.\nMember Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer\nfor the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square\nfeet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the\ncenter and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the\nenvironment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)\ncement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that\nhe is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of\nknowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.\nThe RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member\ndeHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going\nForward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be\nable to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.\nMember Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy\nduring the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff\nwould ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.\nSpeaker: Gretchen Lipow\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-03-02", "page": 5, "text": "None.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-04-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, April 6, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-032) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 2, 2011, Minutes of the\nSpecial Joint City Council/ARRA/Community Improvement Meetings held on March 15, 2011.\n(*11-033) Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council and BSA Sea Scouts -\nAncient Mariner Regatta.\n(*11-034) Approve the Proposed Sale of Two Grove Cranes to NRC Environmental Services.\n(*11-035) Authorize the ARRA Port Manager, NRC Environmental Services, to Replace the Pier\n2 Fendering System in an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000.\n(*11-036) Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with Scott Electric for Pier 3\nElectrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a Contract Not to Exceed $238,266 Using Remaining\nARRA Bond Funds.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded\nthe motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\nChair Gilmore moved Item 7-A to be the first item discussed under the Regular Agenda\nItems.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-037) Alameda Point Commercial Market Assessment.\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a presentation focusing on Alameda and East Bay market\nconditions and the implications for Alameda Point and its redevelopment, strictly to provide a\nmarket overview and not a development strategy, to determine the state of the market as it\nexists today.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-04-06", "page": 2, "text": "John McManus, senior director of Cushman & Wakefield was available to answer questions.\nChair Gilmore expressed concern that implementing a long term lease strategy that is niche-\nfocused will take as long as implementing a development plan.\nMr. McManus replied that a reuse strategy is different than a build-to-suit strategy, stating that it\nis important that it is clearly defined what is available. Advised a strategy to show potential\noffice buildings with a potential floor plan and be able to explain to potential tenants that all risks\nhave been removed and understand what can be delivered.\nChair Gilmore clarified that in order to effectively market Alameda Point, money needs to be\nspent upfront to determine concept buildings or concept plans apart from what the master plan\nends up being. Mr. McManus agreed with Chair Gilmore, stating that there needs to be a clear\ndefinition, and if it is left to the potential tenants to figure out, in an environment where there is\nso much vacancy, chances are that Alameda Point will not get their attention unless it's a very\nunique use with a big footprint.\nMember Tam inquired about the element of competition in the marketplace, asking what kind of\nrecommended capital outlay is needed for Alameda Point to have a competitive edge. Mr.\nMcManus stated that the good competitive news is that redevelopment and enterprise zones\nare not going to be competitors for Alameda Point.\nJoe Ernst, SRM associates, added that there is so much obsolescence of space - there is no\nlonger a need for more plain office space -- and it is a function of understanding the market for\nspaces and uses that cannot be developed elsewhere, and aligning with the right team to\ndevelop it. Vice Chair Bonta inquired if there are market segments performing differently than\nthe market trends. Mr. Ernst replied that those segments with superior performance include life\nsciences, such as the LBNL opportunity, light industrial, and R&D flex space.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the next step will involve doing\nmore research and return to the Board with ideas or strategies.\nChair Gilmore thanked the Deputy City Manager- Development Services and staff for the\noverview.\n(11-038) Review and Comment on Summary Report for the Community Planning Process for\nAlameda Point.\nThe Planning Services Supervisor and the Deputy City Manager- - Development Services gave a\npresentation on the Community Planning Process.\nSpeakers: Elizabeth Krase Greene, Adam Gillitt, Nancy Gordon, Gretchen Lipow, Helen Sause,\nCarol Gottstein, Susan Galleymore, Nancy Hird.\nChair Gilmore commented that she is looking forward to be able to discuss the financial\nfeasibility of the Alameda Point project with the public so the community can understand how\nmuch it will cost to develop Alameda Point. In the past, since the developer was running a pro\nforma, a lot of costs were not able to be shared with the public. Chair Gilmore stated that\ncertain costs are inescapable, no matter what is developed: infrastructure costs between $600M\n- $800M.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-04-06", "page": 3, "text": "Member Tam concurred with Chair Gilmore and added that economic underpinnings are critical\nat Alameda Point. Member Tam and Chair Gilmore expressed their appreciation to staff and the\ncommunity for all their time and effort in the Community Planning Process.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-039) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative\n- Highlights of March 3, 2011 RAB Meeting.\nMember deHaan reported that the RAB discussed the San Francisco Estuary Regional\nMonitoring program, a program that monitors 22 water sites in bay, and 47 sediment sites. The\nRAB would like the program to take on one area of Alameda Point to monitor. The OU2A site,\nadjacent to Encinal High School, was also discussed. Surface remediation was done, and final\nremediation will be completed. Tomorrow's meeting (3/4) will include an update on the\nSeaplane Lagoon.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-040) Update on Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Second Campus Request for\nQualifications.\nThe Deputy City Manager-Development Services gave a presentation on the LBNL Campus\nopportunity.\nRepresentatives from the development teams introduced themselves to the Council: Joe Ernst,\nSRM; Mary Pampuch, Lankford & Associates, Inc.\nSpeakers: Robert Todd\nMember Tam inquired whether any of the 21 applicants that had responded have the same type\nof potential development partner in RFQ process, in particular inquired if Alameda's partners are\nunique to Alameda.\nThe Deputy City Manager-Development Services responded that to her knowledge, the other\nsites are already owned by developers or have already teamed with private property owners;\nthe other applicants did not go through an RFQ process for a developer like Alameda, and none\nof the other teams are teamed with the other sites.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired when the announcement of the short list will be made and how short\nis the short list. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services replied that the call can come\nthrough at any time now and that three on the short list is reasonable. Member Tam inquired if\nthere was any value to engaging legislators. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services\nstated that letters have been sent to Stark and Swanson, but recommends waiting until the short\nlist comes out before Alameda starts lobbying.\nChair Gilmore thanked staff for the update and thanked the representatives from the\ndevelopment teams for attending and introducing themselves to the Board.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-04-06", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-06-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, June 1, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Vice Chair Bonta presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nVice Chair Bonta, Members deHaan, Johnson, and Tam\nand Chair -4.\n(Note: Member Johnson arrived at 7:07 p.m.)\nAbsent:\nMayor Gilmore - 1\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-048) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of April 6, 2011 and the Special\nARRA Meeting of May 17, 2011.\n(*11-049) Approve a No-Cost, Two-Year Lease Agreement with Friends of Alameda Theater,\nInc. for a Portion of Building 91 at Alameda Point.\n(*11-050) Transmittal of May 18, 2011 Webinar Presentation.\nVice Chair Bonta pulled item 3-B (Building 91) for clarification.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired why the rent for Building 19 is being waived, instead of having a\npaying tenant. Nanette Mocanu, Economic Development Division Manager, explained that\nBuilding 91 is being split between two tenants, one on a month-to-month term. The entire space\nis currently being marketed, and the lease has a 90-day termination clause. The building would\nbe vacant otherwise.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Member\ndeHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\nMember Tam moved for approval of Item 3-B. Member deHaan seconded the motion,\nwhich carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-051) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative\n- Highlights of April 7 and May 5, 2011 RAB Meetings.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-06-01", "page": 2, "text": "Member deHaan reported that the RAB is starting to look at the fuel distribution system\nunderneath the runway, adjacent to the lagoon. He explained that since it is fuel, the\nclean up might be problematic, but easier to remediate than heavy metals and PCBs as\nin other sites.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-052) Alameda Point Update\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a short update. Alameda Point was\namong six other sites LBNL short-listed for its second campus. Staff is working with the\ndevelopment team daily to prepare high quality responses to upcoming submittals to LBNL.\nThe final selection process will be in November.\nA two-hour developer interview was held on May 31st, which included a 30-minute presentation,\nby the development team. The presentation included case studies of projects they worked on,\nproject delivery, and public outreach plans. Staff plans to have other informal meetings with the\ndevelopment team.\nA community meeting is scheduled for July 13th from 7-9:30 p.m. Staff is looking at various\nsuitable venues, in terms of capacity and access. There will be an extensive outreach plan,\nincluding revamping and developing a separate website focused on LBNL, and a Facebook\npage which will be managed by a marketing company - all in an effort to access different\npopulations that have not been accessed before. Staff and the development team will be\nmaking presentations to different organizations throughout the city. Staff will provide a packet of\nthe community outreach materials to the City Council at its June 21st meeting.\nRegarding the larger master planning efforts of Alameda Point, staff held its first webinar on\nMay 18, 2011 to impart the financial basics on how the pro forma works more generically, and\ndetails on infrastructure costs related to the existing entitlement, which is the general plan. A\nTransportation workshop was held on May 26, 2011. There was a presentation that detailed\ncase studies of how other communities dealt with traffic congestion issues, how they addressed\nthose issues and moved forward, including Santa Monica, CA and Boulder, CO, which has\nsimilar density to Alameda. A Sustainability Workshop is scheduled on June 14th to look at\nother communities to achieve sustainability and implement some sustainability concepts.\nAnother webinar will be scheduled in July to follow up on details of pro forma, and the approach\nto get the community involved in the financial side. More developer interviews will be done.\nMember deHaan inquired if the transportation study is posted online, to which the Deputy City\nManager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that the report will also\nbe transmitted to the Board. Member deHaan complimented staff on the financial webinar,\nstating that he was impressed with a job well done.\nMember Tam inquired what proportion of backbone infrastructure cost will be needed for the\nLBNL site. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the amount is being\ncalculated. Phase one will not have much new infrastructure, but for build out, there will be", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-06-01", "page": 3, "text": "more improvements needed. Staff is also working with Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) on the\ncalculations. AMP will be able to serve the first phase without a lot of improvements.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired what the average number of participants was for the community\nengagement events and how the information is being disseminated. The Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services explained that the Transportation Workshop was not well attended, as\nthere was a League of Women Voters event on the same night. There were fewer than 20\npeople at the Transportation Workshop, and approximately 50 people attended the webinar (35\npeople attending online with approximately 10-15 present in person). The recording of webinar\nis available online, and the pdf of presentations will also be posted online.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired if the Sustainability workshops will be recorded, stating that the\ncommunity would take the opportunity to participate and view if it were available online, and that\nthere is value to holding the events in Chambers so that they can be broadcast and recorded.\nMember deHaan agreed, stating that the community watches meetings on the City's channel\n15, and although the audience is small in chambers, there are a lot of home viewers and may\nreach more people. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that with the\nSustainability Workshop in particular, the element of interaction from community is needed.\nVice Chair Bonta expressed his appreciation for staff's efforts regarding the July 13th event and\ninquired about other smaller events for community outreach. The Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services stated that the team has a calendar of events scheduled. They have\nmet with the Chamber of Commerce, and plan to attend and present at several joint mixers with\nthe WABA, PSBA, Rotary, League of Women, Business Association newsletters, Concerts at\nthe Cove etc.\nMember Johnson suggested giving a presentation to school board. Member Tam suggested\nincluding the Peralta Community College District Board community to gain support of\nenvironmental community. The Acting City Manager meets with a realtors association and\nplans to bring something more formal to them. Vice Chair Bonta asked that the Hospital Board\nbe included in the outreach.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Tam provided a brief report on the Legislative Action day of May 18th. On the budget\nscene, the delegation - Loni Hancock, Joan Buchanan, Mary Hayashi, Nancy Skinner, Bob\nWieckowski, and Mark DeSaulnier - seemed determined that they would have a budget to send\nto the Governor on June 15th because this is the first time Prop. 25 has been implemented,\nwhich stipulates that they won't get paid if the budget is not presented.\nRegarding redevelopment, the league is very clear about the priorities, they understand at least\nin the East Bay district, not all the legislators will be supportive, Hancock, Buchanan, Hiyashi\nand Wieckowski were opposed to keeping redevelopment, as they have seen through the\nGovernor's discussion that there has been abuses by some agencies. Assemblymember\nSwanson has seen benefits of redevelopment and understands LBNL's need for RDA funding\n(several cities in his district are on the short list). An option that the league is exploring is reform\nto deal with the abuses, including Senator Wright's bill, which tightens the definition of blighted\nareas in redevelopment and putting caps and mechanisms to avoid some of these abuses.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-06-01", "page": 4, "text": "Member deHaan inquired how the legislators discussed slicing out base conversion.\nThe\nDeputy City Manager - Development Services discussed a bill in circulation that carves out\nmilitary bases, a new bill from the League of Cities, and the CAL Redevelopment Agency and\nAssociation of Defense Communities. Senator Wiggins introduced a bill on behalf of\ncommunities with Bases, which staff will be monitoring.\nThe Acting City Attorney reminded the Board that this discussion couldn't continue, as it is not\non the agenda. It can be agendized on a future meeting if they want to discuss it further.\nMember Tam concluded her report.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Vice Chair Bonta adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-09-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWEDNESDAY, September 7, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-063) Approve the Minutes of the Special ARRA Meetings of July 13, 2011 and July 19, 2011.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member deHaan seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-064) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -\nHighlights of August 4, 2011 RAB Meetings.\nMember deHaan stated that Site OU-2C, a major contamination area, was discussed. The site\nhas been worked on in many phases. The RAB has set an alternative for Site D-6 which is $16M,\nstating that the Navy wants to go with the $5.8M. The issue is still being discussed and under\nevaluation.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-065) Provide Update on Status of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Process and\nRedevelopment of Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that LBNL members visited the site\nand were given a guided tour and presentation. LBNL and consultants are currently\nreviewing site submittals. In Sept/Oct staff will compile one final response. LBNL stated\nthat they will review final submittals and make a recommendation to the UC Regents in\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nSeptember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-09-07", "page": 2, "text": "November. Regarding the larger redevelopment of Alameda Point, there are ongoing\nnegotiations with the Navy re: conveyance of property, continuing conversation with State\nLands re: Tidelands Trust Exchange. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point will\ncome back to the ARRA with updates in the next couple of months.\nMember deHaan asked to confirm the LBNL timeline. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint explained that the UC Regents meets every two months, if the timeline were to slip, or if they\nwere not ready to make a selection in November, the issue will slip to the next meeting in January.\nThe City Manager informed the Board that staff has informally heard that the selection may indeed\nslip to January, but reassured the Board that staff is completely ready and has not asked for any\nextension as others have. Alameda is on time, on budget, and will be ready for a November\nmeeting if it happens. Staff is urging a prompt decision.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan discussed that the Associated Community Action Plan (ACAP) will have their last\nmeeting next week. He recommends that community members view their audit, which was\nreleased to the public.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nSeptember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-10-05", "page": 1, "text": "80\nUNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWEDNESDAY, Ocotber 5, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:07 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\nChair Gilmore requested that the Pledge of Allegiance be added to the ARRA agenda.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-069) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular ARRA Meetings of September 7, 2011.\nMember deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded\nthe motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-070) Approve Term Sheet between United States Navy and the Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority for No-Cost Conveyance of Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point summarized the Term Sheet.\nPursue no-cost\nconveyance for LBNL, Navy Comprehensive conveyance strategy for entire base - discussed the\nmajor terms. Next steps to negotiate amendment to existing economic development conveyance\nmemorandum of agreement bring back to ARRA for approval.\nThe Acting City Attorney asked the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point to explain the\nEnvironmental Review of the term sheet. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point explained\nthat Alameda Point does not constitute a project under CEQA, therefore the Board is able to\napprove the term sheet without conducting additional environmental review.\nSpeaker: Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES, congratulated staff on a job well done after 14 years. Ms.\nLichtenstein discussed hope for the housing plan to move ahead, and hopefully with LBNL at the\nPoint.\nRegarding the enforcement provision of the market rate residential, Chair Gilmore requested\nconfirmation that the City will not have to pay the $50,000 fee per unit to the Navy. The Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nVice Chair Bonta reemphasized that the Navy will maintain their obligation to clean up the\nproperty. The City Manager also reiterated that the City has incurred no environmental liability.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nSeptember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-10-05", "page": 2, "text": "81\nMember Tam discussed the City's other obligation to provide work-force and affordable housing.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point informed the Board that since staff has been\nreceiving a lot of inquiries regarding remediation, there will be a presentation from the\nEnvironmental Consultant, Peter Russell, at the November ARRA meeting.\nChair Gilmore stated that, in addition to the no-cost conveyance, the City gets control over the\nland. This is a valuable opportunity to develop more long term leases because we can provide\ntenants with certainty.\nMember deHaan recognized and thanked the members of the BRAG and other numerous\ncommunity organizations over the past 15 years. Chair Gilmore joined Member deHaan in\nrecognizing the community organizations that brought us to this point.\nMember Bonta moved to approve the Term Sheet. Member Tam seconded the motion. On\nthe call for the question, the motion carried by a roll call vote:\nMember deHaan - Aye, Member Johnson - Aye, Member Tam - Aye, Vice Chair Bonta -\nAye, Chair Gilmore - Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions: 0\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-071) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -\nHighlights of September 1, 2011 RAB Meetings.\nMember deHaan introduced Richard Banger, RAB member, who was present in the in audience.\nMr. Banger compiled a great amount of information on the history and activity regarding the\nremediation of Alameda Point on his website: www.alamedapointenvironmentalreport.com\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point added that, with Mr. Banger's help, key information\nabout remediation will be included on the City's website. Staff is also working with the\nEnvironmental Consultant, Peter Russell, to provide a less technical, shorter executive summary,\nbut have technical minutes still available.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nCarol Gottstein, Alameda citizen, spoke about the base cleanup and informed the public about the\nrepository at City Hall West which includes a large amount of information regarding the Alameda\nPoint remediation. Ms. Gottstein recently joined the RAB and encouraged others to join or attend\nthe RAB meetings.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nThe City Manager stated that staff and the Council owes a debt of gratitude to Jennifer Ott (Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point) for all her hard work in bringing us to this point. Vice Chair\nBonta thanked Ms. Ott publicly, commending her on the great work and that the Board is proud of\nthe fantastic results. Chair Gilmore thanked Ms. Ott for staying the course and working through\nmany years of frustration. Member Johnson thanked the attorneys for a team effort.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-10-05", "page": 3, "text": "82\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nSeptember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWEDNESDAY, November 2, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:32 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-073) Approve the Minutes of the Special Meetings of September 20, 2011 and the Special\nand Regular Meetings of October 5, 2011.\n(*11-074) Approve a 47-Year Legally Binding Agreement with Alameda Point Collaborative for\nBuildings 802, 803, 806, 809, 810, 811 and 812 (30 Units of Housing) and Authorize the Executive\nDirector to Execute the Agreement and any Related Documents.\nChair Gilmore pulled Item 3-A (minutes) to make a correction. Member Tam moved for\napproval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion,\nwhich carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMember Tam moved for approval of Item 3-A with the corrections. Vice Chair Bonta\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (Note: Chair Gilmore and\nMember Johnson abstained from approving the Minutes of Sept. 20, as they were not\npresent at that meeting). [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-075) Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions of the Alameda Point\nSite.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point introduced the Environmental Consultant of the\nAlameda Point Project, Peter Russell, Russell Resources. Dr. Russell provided a powerpoint\npresentation on the status of the remediation and environmental issues of Alameda Point.\nDr. Russell's remediation experience includes numerous sites: Fort Ord, Tustin Air Station, Benicia\nArsenal, Mission Bay clean up, and the Southern and Union Pacific rail yards in Sacramento.\nMember deHaan commended Dr. Russell and the RAB for all their efforts in the environmental\nprogram of Alameda Point.\nSpeakers: Dale Smith, Community Chair of RAB and member for 10+ years. Ms. Smith discussed\nsoil issues not being addressed and CERCLA sites that are still of concern at Alameda Point.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Gilmore thanked Dr. Russell and members of the RAB for their technical expertise and\ndiligence over the decade and more.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-076) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -\nHighlights of October 6, 2011 RAB Meetings.\nMember deHaan echoed the statements from Dr. Russell's presentation and reminded the public\nthat the remediation is ongoing, and that a vast majority of property will be given to the ARRA with\ncertain restrictions.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 3, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nComments by Dale Smith, Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair\n33:49\nThe residential standards are for groundwater only, and they\nAt Alameda Point, cleanup to residential standards means\nare not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,\nthat the health risk and health hazard from both soil and\ncadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil that is\ngroundwater (combined) are health-protective for single-\nnot being addressed.\nfamily residential land use; which is the most stringent land-\nuse standard. This principle applies to both the CERCLA\n(Full Comment: The talk of residential standards, when I talk\nand Petroleum Programs. Accordingly, the concentrations of\nto community members, they seem to get confused because\ntoxic metals in soil are explicitly considered by the Navy\nthe residential standards are for groundwater only, and they\nand the environmental regulatory agencies in deciding\nare not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,\nwhether soil remediation is needed to allow residential land\ncadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil, and\nuse and, if so, the type and extent of that remediation.\nthat is not being addressed as far as we can tell.)\n34:14\nSlide 13 represents the CERCLA sites only. There are\nContamination in soil and groundwater at Alameda Point is\npetroleum sites that move in and out of CERCLA. One\naddressed by either the CERCLA or Petroleum Program,\nmonth they'l be in, and the next month they'l be out. For\nwhichever appears to be most appropriate. For example, a\nexample, the plume under Kollmann Circle originally was in\nsite with petroleum contamination is typically managed\nthe petroleum site, got put in the CERCLA site.\nunder the Petroleum Program, unless non-petroleum\ncontamination also is present. Occasionally, management of\n(Full Comment: The graphs in the document, according to\na particular site will transfer from one program to another\nthe EPA representative, represent the CERCLA sites only,\nduring the course of investigation and remedial decision\nand I don't know if you changed those or you basically used\nmaking. For example, a site may move to the CERCLA\nthose graphs. You know the tall Yeah,\nso\nthose\nare\nProgram if contamination by a CERCLA substance is found\nCERCLA sites only, and there are petroleum sites that move\nat a Petroleum Program site. The goals for protection of\nin and out of CERCLA. They do a little hula dance. One\nhuman health and the environment are the same with both\nmonth they'll be in, and the next month they'll be out. So\nprograms.\nthere are sites that are still of concern, such as the plume\nunder Kollmann Circle, which originally was in the\npetroleum site, but then because of problems in Bayport, it\ngot put in the CERCLA site. So just bear that in mind. As I\nsaid, the soil is not being remediated.)\n35:09\nAccording to the presentation, \"cleanup\" means active\nThis comment primarily applies to cleanup of groundwater\nPage 1 of 1\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 4, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nremediation. However, the cleanup is going on for much\ncontamination. The remediation of many Alameda Point\nlonger than that. For example, the RAB had a presentation\ngroundwater contamination sites follows two principal\non one site (groundwater at OU-2B), where the cleanup was\nsteps. The first is an initial phase, during which the\ngoing to take 22 to 35 years, and there'll be severe\ncontamination, especially the source area, is treated, for\nrestrictions on the use of that site.\nexample by injection of chemicals or by heating. The\nsecond phase typically consists of periodic groundwater\n(Full Comment: Cleanup as defined in the presentation, as I\nsampling to monitor progress of natural processes in further\nread it or I hear it, means the active remediation done by the\nreducing contamination concentrations. The first phase often\nmilitary, meaning trucks and things are out there. Scoops are\ntakes three years or less. The second phase lasts until clean-\ndigging up dirt. Otherwise the cleanup is going on for much\nup goals are reached. The commenter is correct in that the\nlonger than that. We had a presentation on one site two\nsecond phase can last for several decades, as in the example\nmonths ago where the cleanup was going to take 22 to 35\nof Operable Unit 2B (OU-2B).\nyears, and there'll be severe restrictions on the use of that\nsite. So bear that in mind.)\nDuring the second phase, land-use restrictions may be\napplied to protect monitoring wells and to prevent use of the\ngroundwater. Depending on the type of groundwater\ncontamination, land-use restrictions may also require that\nbuilding designs include vapor barriers, special ventilation,\netc. to safeguard public health. Land-use restrictions during\nthe second phase typically do not preclude most uses of the\nsite. Thus, \"severe restrictions\" on land use typically apply\nonly to the first few years of cleanup.\n35:44\nQuite a bit of money is spent on cleanup using innovative\nCERCLA requires that clean-up decision making evaluate\ntechnologies. But the Navy is using experimental\nthe extent to which each remedial alterative under\ntechnologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of\nconsideration reduces the amount, toxicity, or mobility of\nmoney, so the Navy is able to make presentations to\ncontaminants through treatment. This statutory preference\nscientific boards.\nimplies that innovative technologies sometimes will be\nselected as the preferred clean-up alternative.\n(Full Comment: One of the RAB's concerns has been that\nthere has been quite a bit of money spent on cleanup using\nSometimes it is unclear whether a promising emerging\ninnovative technologies. But they' re using experimental\ntechnology will be effective under conditions found at\nPage 2 of 2\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 5, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\ntechnologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of\nAlameda Point. In such cases, a pilot test (a form of\nmoney. So, but they, the Navy then is able to make\nexperiment) typically is conducted to evaluate how well the\npresentations to scientific boards saying that they tried this\ntechnology would work. A pilot test of in-situ thermal\ntechnology and it did not work.)\ntreatment to treat groundwater was tried at OU-2C and\nfound to be very cost-effective. Alternatively, a pilot test of\nnano-zerovalent-iron injection was tried at OU-2B and\nfound not to be effective. In both cases, the Navy and the\nenvironmental regulatory agencies unanimously agreed the\npilot testing (experimenting) was a prudent way to evaluate\nthe promising technology.\nThe principal instance where experimentation with\ntechnologies has occurred at Alameda Point is regarding\ngroundwater in another area of OU-2B. In this case, a\nuniversity and an EPA national laboratory approached the\nNavy for permission to conduct an experiment on\ngroundwater contamination. The experiment was primarily\nfunded externally, and the information obtained by the\nproject has improved clean-up decision making for OU-2B\ngroundwater.\n36:16\nAn \"active cleanup\" site on Slide 13 means a site for which\nThe \"Active Cleanup\" column in the graph on Slide 13\nthe regulators have signed off on site characterization and\nincludes sites which have completed their RODs and design\nremedial investigation, and is to move on to Proposed Plans,\nor implementation of the active remediation is in progress.\nRODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of sites in that category\nSites that are in the Proposed Plan or draft ROD stages are\ndon't have those in place yet, but they're put in the active\ncategorized on Slide 13 as \"Under Investigation\" CERCLA\ncleanup column anyway.\nrequires that remedial activities in the field begin within\nfifteen months of completing the ROD.\n(Full Comment: So active cleanup on that slide show means\nanything that has moved to the point where the regulators\nThe distinctions the comment focuses on will be explained\nhave signed off on site characterization and remedial\nmore explicitly on future versions of this slide.\ninvestigation, and now and has moved into a place where\nPage 3 of 3\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 6, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nthere are Proposed Plans, RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of\nit doesn't have those in place yet, but they're put in the\nactive cleanup column.)\n36:46\nThe presentation (Slide 15) indicated portions of the\nThe IR Site boundaries on Slide 15 accurately reflect the\nNorthwest Territories are white (outside of IR Sites). But\nBCT's current understanding of the extent of radium in soil\nmost of these areas have recently been found to have radium\nat Northwest Territories. Within the last few years, the\ncontamination in soil. There is no plan for remediation of\nboundaries of the site in the area the comment references\nthis contamination.\n(IR Site 32) were expanded to account for low-level radium\ncontamination in soil extending over a greater area than was\n(Full Comment: The map showed the Northwest Territories\noriginally recognized. The Navy is currently completing an\nto be white, but they have recently been found to be covered\nextensive radiological survey of soil in this area. The\nwith radium to a depth of a half foot to a foot and a half, as I\npreliminary results from this investigation indicate that the\nrecall, in most of it. And there has been no plan as to how\nextent of radium in soil does not extend beyond the current\nthat's going to be remediated, as far as we know.)\nIR Site boundaries (into the white areas shown on Slide 15).\n37:09\nNatural attenuation hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why expect\nNatural attenuation consists of a variety of natural processes\nit to occur in the next five or ten years?\nthat reduce contaminant concentrations over time, usually\nrelatively slowly: biochemical degradation, dispersion,\n(Full Comment: And one of, George Humphries, who is my\nvolatilization, etc. These are commonly effective in\ncohort in this battle, likes to point out that natural attenuation\nreducing contaminant concentrations to remedial goals after\nhasn't occurred for 60 years. Why do you think it's going to\nthe initial active-cleanup phase.\noccur in the next five or ten years?)\nA fundamental component of the monitored natural\nattenuation part of a clean-up alternative is ongoing\ngroundwater sampling and analysis to verify that\ncontaminant concentrations drop as expected. If the levels\ndo not drop, CERCLA requires that the ROD be changed to\nensure clean-up goals are achieved.\nMore technical response: Two factors support the\nexpectation that natural attenuation will work well after\nactive remediation.\nPage 4 of 4\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 7, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nFirst, underground bacteria and other microbes degrade\nmany contaminants, often an important component of\nnatural attenuation. However, initial site conditions may\ninclude contaminant levels that are so high that they are\ntoxic to the very microorganisms that, with more dilute\nconcentrations, would readily consume the contamination as\nfood. Thus, following an initial phase of active cleanup of\nthe higher concentration zones, natural attenuation can\nproceed more effectively.\nSecond, with initial high contaminant concentrations, the\neffect of natural attenuation often is not discernible. This is\nbecause of the inherent variability of sampling and analysis.\nA simple example illustrates this point. With an initial\ncontaminant concentration of 10,000 micrograms per liter\n(ug/L) and an inherent sampling variability of plus or minus\nten percent, duplicate sampling and analysis of the same\ngroundwater could yield analytical results anywhere\nbetween 9,000 ug/L and 11,000 ug/L. Say for discussion\npurposes, that natural attenuation reduces the contaminant\nconcentration by 10 ug/L each year. This rate of natural\nattenuation would be difficult to detect in a reasonable\nperiod of time by sampling. On the other hand, after an\ninitial phase of active remediation that reduces contaminant\nlevels, to say 300 ug/L, then analysis of duplicate samples\nwould yield results between 330 ug/L and 270 ug/L (+/-\n10%). Now, natural attenuation at a rate of 10 ug/L would\nbe both meaningful and discernible by sampling and\nanalysis.\n37:25\nPlanting trees will not be allowed. Gardening and fruit\nRestrictions on digging are used sparingly at Alameda\nPage 5 of 5\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 8, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\ngrowing will be allowed, but digging a hole in the soil will\nPoint: in only three instances.\nnot.\nFirst, the Marsh Crust Ordinance restricts digging below the\n(Full Comment: And then to answer, I think, your question\nThreshold Depth, unless a permit is obtained first.\nabout planting trees: no, you will not be able to plant trees.\nYou'll be able to plant You'l be able to have a garden,\nSecond, soil cleanup at North Housing (IR Site 25) was\nand you' 'll be able to grow fruit, but you will not be able to\nconducted in landscaped areas, but not under buildings or\ndig a hole in the soil.)\npavement. Accordingly, major site work is restricted\nwithout first obtaining approval from the BCT.\nAdditionally, digging deeper than four feet below ground\nsurface at North Housing is prohibited without approval\nfrom the BCT. These restrictions may affect tree planting. In\nany case, BCT approval would be granted provided digging\nwere conducted while following a site management plan\nthat appropriately manages potential encounters with\ncontaminated soil.\nThird, at Todd Shipyards (IR Site 28), a non-residential\narea, digging deeper than two feet below ground surface is\nrestricted without first obtaining approval from the BCT.\nPage 6 of 6\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-12-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWEDNESDAY, December 7, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:21 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-081) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of November 2, 2011.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-082) Presentation on Status of Disposition and Development Strategy for Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a power point presentation summarizing the\nnext steps for moving forward with the no cost reconveyance and development strategy for\nAlameda Point. Staff is providing the update to the Board before moving into the next phase of\nmaking recommendations. The summary focused on entitlement, transportation infrastructure,\nsolicitation and transaction.\nSpeakers: Carol Gottstein discussed maximizing the land value of Alameda Point, specifically\nBuilding 94, Chapel.\nChair Gilmore stated accountability issues are a downside to Phased Development. The Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point explained the key is to have really good design up front, and\nguiding documents that dictate how larger engineering and structure will work globally, so that the\ndesign is solid. There is concern about different developers doing backbone infrastructure for small\npieces. Having a uniform developer for larger, 100- acre parcels, would narrow accountability\nissues with fewer people.\nMember Tam discussed concerns about funding of predevelopment costs, backbone\ninfrastructure, and that the days of tax increment bond funding may not be available because of\nthe elimination of redevelopment. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point remains positive\nthat redevelopment will continue, and tax increment bonds will definitely be part of the plan. Staff\nwill have more information on potential funding sources to present to the Board at a future meeting.\nMember deHaan inquired where funding for predevelopment can be derived. The Chief Operating\nOfficer - Alameda Point discussed the two sides to the equation - cost side and revenue side.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-12-07", "page": 2, "text": "With reasonable costs, a developer can provide ideas to test assumptions. ARRA has a fund\nbalance, with a certain amount spent on planning. Options will be explored to find ways to\nleverage for upfront costs. Staff is exploring other sources of low cost capital with contingencies\nbuilt into the costs, with the same analysis used for other options.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired about the developer role as an advisor to ARRA. The Chief Operating\nOfficer - Alameda Point explained that ARRA would be the property owner and maintain control\nover entitlement process. With the understanding that ARRA is not a developer, put out an RFQ\nfor a development advisor, with a recommendation that the advisor actually be a developer with\nexperience working on large-scale projects, not just a consultant. In this advisor role, the\ndeveloper would actually work for the ARRA, are paid a monthly fee, but their contract can be\nterminated by the ARRA. The advantage from a transaction standpoint is that it would be a simple\ncontract; the advisor has no actual rights to development or land. The concept is that the ARRA\nmaintain control, work in a partnership, but ARRA would be the leader. Vice Chair Bonta inquired\nif there are any examples of that type of partnership. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint stated that Hamilton AFB is a similar example. Hamilton hired a team of advisors, which\nincluded attorneys and economic consultants who planned and entitled all of Hamilton. They did\nan RFQ with developers and negotiated purchase and sale, but had entitlements all upfront.\nMember Johnson expressed concern about handling the most difficult parcels or areas that will\ntake longer to clean up. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed starting up efforts\nand creating value will make the property more valuable. Less money is taken out of the project by\na master developer, which leaves more money in the project for development itself.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point informed the Board that staff would be coming back\nto the ARRA with an update in February.\n(11-083) Presentation on the Status of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Second Campus\nProcess.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point provided an oral update on the LBNL Second\nCampus process. LBNL announced that they postponed their selection decision to early 2012.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that it is staff's supposition that LBNL has\nmade a selection, but they are making sure the DOE and UC Regents are on the same page and\npolicy makers are on board.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\nNone.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-12-07", "page": 3, "text": "9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan gave a brief report on the December 1 RAB meeting. The main issue was the\nRAB's plan for ongoing years, specifically the schedule and frequency of meetings. The Navy\nproposed to meet on a quarterly basis to cut back on operations costs. Various options are still\nbeing explored, including teleconferencing capabilities. The RAB elected Dale Smith as Co-chair\nand Carol Gottstein as Vice Co-chair.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWEDNESDAY, January 4, 2012\nThe meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(12-001) Cara Kuhlman, Alameda, discussed starting dialogue with the ARRA to open a\ncommunity sailing center program at Alameda Point.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*12-002) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of December 7, 2011.\n(*12-003) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with\nRussell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term\nfor 12 Months and Adding $165,000 to the Budget.\n(*12-004) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with\nCarlson, Barbee & Gibson for Civil Engineering and Surveying Consulting Services for Alameda\nPoint Extending the Term for 24 Months and Adding $74,400 to the Budget.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member deHaan seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-005) Award Contract in the Amount of $225,000 to Keyser Marston Associates to Prepare an\nEconomic Development Strategy for Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed the Office of Economic Adjustment\n$225,000 award to the ARRA to conduct economic development strategy.\nMember Johnson expressed concern that any economic strategy or plan may be irrelevant\nbecause of the elimination of the redevelopment agencies. The Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point explained that it is even more important to have a strategy in place and be\nprepared to attract industrial and commercial users that can help bring in the infrastructure.\nMember Tam inquired if there will be an increased dependency on private funds because of the\nloss of tax increment funding. Tim Kelly, Keyser Marston, stated that there are lots of opportunity\nfor growth and enhancement with existing tenants. He discussed other financing tools available,\nincluding Infrastructure Financing Districts and Community Facilities Districts. Mr. Kelly explained\nthat these financing tools have to be packaged in phases so it can be managed and delivered.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nJanuary 4, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 2, "text": "Member deHaan expressed concern about how to address the community process. The Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point explained that there was feedback from the community that\nthere is a bit of fatigue on community meetings. The focus now is to engage the tenants. The\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point agreed with Member deHaan that the Economic\nDevelopment Commission and other formal bodies should be engaged.\nVice Chair Bonta moved for approval of the staff recommendation. Member Johnson\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-006) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and the United States Navy for the Economic Development\nConveyance of Portions of the Former Naval Air Station Alameda.\nChair Gilmore stated that although the No-Cost Economic Development Conveyance is\novershadowed by the redevelopment news, it is still amazing and exciting news. The Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point agreed and provided a summary of events. The ARRA\napproved a term sheet with the Navy on October 5, 2011. The term sheet contemplated a no-cost\nconveyance of Alameda Point from the Navy to the ARRA consistent with the 1996 Reuse Plan.\nThe Term Sheet became the final amendment to the existing 2000 Memorandum of Agreement\nwith the Navy. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed the changes, including the\nconveyance schedule, the enforcement mechanism, use of proceeds, and the addition of\nsubmerged lands. The conveyance schedule contemplates a vast majority of the property coming\nto the ARRA by the end of 2012.\nChair Gilmore thanked staff for working tirelessly and effortlessly over the years to make the No-\nCost Economic Development Conveyance happen.\nProponent: Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES).\nMember Tam moved for approval of the staff recommendation. Member Johnson\nseconded the motion. Chair Gilmore requested a roll-call vote be conducted: Vice Chair\nBonta - aye, Member deHaan - aye, Member Johnson - aye, Member Tam - aye, Chair\nGilmore - aye. Ayes - 5, Abstentions - 0, Noes - 0.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(12-007) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -\nHighlights of December 1, 2011 RAB Meetings.\nMember deHaan stated that he provided the 12/1 update at the December ARRA meeting and\nthat the RAB will not meet again until March. It is still being evaluated and discussed if RAB\nmeetings will be held on a quarterly basis.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nJanuary 4, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 3, "text": "7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nThe Executive Director re-emphasized the news of the ARRA receiving portions of Alameda Point\nat a No-Cost Conveyance.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nJanuary 4, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:\n(12-015) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators: Human\nResources Director and Masa Shiohira; Employee Organizations: Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA), Alameda City Employees Association\n(ACEA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and Police Officers\nNon-Sworn (PANS).\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that the labor negotiators provided the status of negotiations with four\nbargaining units: IBEW, ACEA, PANs, and MCEA.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 5, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING\nAUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012- -7:02 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:51 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nAllen,\nBonta,\ndeHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 6.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(12-017 CC) Resolution No. 14634, \"(1) Determining It Will Serve as a Successor\nAgency to the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (\"CIC\"); (2)\nElecting Not to Retain the Housing Assets and Functions Previously Performed by the\nCIC; (3) Authorizing Assumption by the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda\n(\"Housing Authority\") of the Rights, Powers, Assets, Liabilities, Duties, and Obligations\nAssociated with the Housing Activities of the CIC; and (4) Authorizing the City Manager\nto Enter Into an Agreement with the Housing Authority to Fund Costs Associated with\nthe Transferred Housing Activities.\" Adopted; and\n(12-001 A HABOC) Resolution No. 836, \"(1) Agreeing to Assume the Rights, Powers,\nAssets, Liabilities, Duties, and Obligations Associated with the Housing Activities of the\nCommunity Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda; and (2) Authorizing the\nExecutive Director to Enter Into an Agreement with the City of Alameda to Fund Costs\nAssociated with the Transferred Housing Activities.\" Adopted.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated redevelopment agencies would cease to exist on February\n1st, but agreements for 400 redevelopment agencies would not suddenly come into\nexistence on February 2nd\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager stated agreements would exist\nbecause of each agency's enforceable obligation schedule.\nIn response to Mayor/Chair Gilmore's inquiry, the Housing Development and Programs\nManager stated the County Auditor-Controller would need to audit each agency's\nenforceable obligation schedule by July 1st.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether a trust fund would be\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\n1\nJanuary 1, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 6, "text": "automatically established by ABX1 26, to which the Housing Development and\nPrograms Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated on February 1st, responsible agencies would start\nexpending funds in the normal course of business; hopefully, reimbursement would be\nset in place on July 1st.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager stated an administrative budget\nneeds to be presented for each successor agency by February; the legislation has\nsome inconsistencies; last year, an obligation schedule was done which predicted\npayment obligations pursuant to enforceable obligations; the next one would be due\nMarch 1st, which would cover January 1st to June 30th; schedules would need to be\napproved by the Oversight Board that would review work of the successor agency; the\nOversight Board would not come into existence until May 1st; suggested amending\nSection 7 to read: \"This resolution shall take effect and be enforced as of the deadline\nfor adoption of this resolution established pursuant to State law as may be amended\nfrom time to time\".\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquired whether the City could recover money, to\nwhich the City Manager/Executive Director responded the money has not been\nsubmitted yet.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated the State was not hitting budget targets before the ruling; it\nappeared that automatic cuts would go into effect; the State will not receive $1.7 billion\ndue to legislation being declared unconstitutional.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated that the State has centralized what the\npayments would be but has created chaos throughout the system.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta stated things are moving very quickly; that he wants to\nensure that the City does not do something it will regret later; inquired what precautions\nwould be taken if another legislative remedy caused the City's successor agency role to\nnot be advantageous, to which the City Manager/Executive Director responded the\nresolutions could always be amended.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta's inquiry, Rafael Mandelman, Burke,\nWilliams, and Sorensen, stated January 13th is the drop-dead date for cities to opt out of\nbecoming a successor agency.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Johnson stated a significant amount of affordable\nhousing has been created by redevelopment agencies; inquired whether affordable\nhousing would also cease.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager responded hopefully, housing\nadvocates would do something about having a permanent income stream fund for\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\n2\nJanuary 1, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}