{"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": "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": "2007-10-03", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, October 3, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Vice Chair Tam presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Boardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\nChair Johnson arrived at 7:52 p.m. (during item 3-B).\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 4, 2007.\n2-B. Approve Three-Year Sublease for Sustainable Technologies at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Approve the Waiver of License Fee for Alameda Unified School District Student Activities.\n2-D. Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident\nManagement, Inc. to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes, o noes, 0 abstentions.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Presentation by Friends of the Wildlife Refuge - An Update of Their Activities at\nAlameda Point.\nA power point presentation was made by Leora Feeney, Chair of FAWR, and Eli Saddler,\nConservation Director for Golden Gate Audubon, to update the Board and community on the\nresources at the Alameda proposed Wildlife Refuge to ensure the resources are protected while\ntransfer negotiations continue. Eli Saddler thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the\nupdate and encouraged them to do whatever possible to protect the resource. He expressed\nconcern about the current plans that have been proposed that are within the area that was\nconsidered in the Biological Opinion. They want to continue to work cooperatively with the VA\nto protect the resource and honor the veterans at the same time.\nMember deHaan commented on how nice it is to look at the maturity of the site, referring to the\nphotos included in the presentation. He asked if the resources, the ponds and wildlife area, are\ngetting to a better state. Ms. Feeney replied that the ponds are wonderful, but that Alameda Point\nand the breakwater is vulnerable. She discussed the increase in the Pelican numbers, and the use\nof the willows by migratory birds, including a hawk, one winter. Ms. Feeney also mentioned\nhow far the recognition of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge stretches, explaining that two college\nstudents chose the Refuge site for their graduate work, one from Los Angeles, and the other from", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-10-03", "page": 2, "text": "Toronto, Canada. Also, the first magazine issued by the National Wildlife Refuge Association\nincluded an segment on Alameda and asked the FAWR to be an affiliate of theirs.\nMember deHaan asked how successful the mating pairs have been up to this point. Ms. Feeney\nsummarized the progress of the lease tern colony, explaining that Alameda has the sixth largest\ncolony in the world, but that we are isolated from the other colonies (most in Southern Ca).\nMember Matarrese really enjoyed the pictures included in the presentation and appreciates the\nfragility of the ecosystem of the site. He discussed another upcoming item on the Agenda, Site\n1, an uncharacterized waste pit which is adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge, and the importance of\naddressing the clean-up issues and how it relates to the water-borne life of the refuge. Mr.\nSaddler added that once construction begins at Alameda Point, it would inevitably impact how\nthe clean-up is managed.\nVice Chair Tam asked if they have seen some of the latest conceptual plans from the VA. Mr.\nSaddler said that he and Ms. Feeney met with the VA and were able to see three versions of\nproposed plans. They were concerned that the new concepts proposes the area between the\nproposed Golf course and the refuge site as a buffer zone, but also expressed their desire to stay\nengaged with the VA and keep things in perspective as to what's best for Alameda, what's best\nfor the Veterans and what's best for the wildlife. Member Matarrese clarified that the VA is a\nfed-to-fed transfer, and not the Alameda development.\nMember deHaan recommended the Board receive periodic updates of the VA's proposals and\nrequested a briefing. Member Matarrese agreed and asked whether the updates can be obtained\nofficially. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that there is no official proposal\navailable yet from the VA. Member Matarrese requested that when there is an official proposal,\nhe would like the Board to see it. The Board agreed.\n3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - oral report\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, reported that the VA is\ncurrently engaged in informal Section 7 consultations with the USF&W and have a potential site\nplan, but there are no additional details beyond that.\nMember deHaan asked what role the ARRA would have, since the property would be a fed-to-\nfed transfer. Ms. Potter explained that it has been properly characterized as a fed-to-fed transfer,\nand, as such, the VA would work directly with the Navy on the conveyance of the property. This\nopportunity is one that the VA would be interested in exploring because the property would be\nconveyed to them for free; different than the conveyance we're involved in for the remainder of\nthe property. ARRA and staff would be involved at an informal level, but because the\ndevelopment is adjacent, we have interest in some issues like the submerged lands adjacent to\ndry lands. Ms Potter stated that staff would continue to consult and work with the VA, the\nUSF&W, and the Navy, but key issues are hammered out at the federal level.\nMember deHaan discussed his understanding that the USF&W made a claim to property, said\nthat they would be the governing body and provide financially, but they could not fulfill their\ncommitment and this is why the Navy is looking for a different avenue. Ms. Potter explained\nthat, in the USF&W's own words, \"the status of refuge is at an impasse\"; that they are unable to\nreconcile their issues with the Navy regarding a fed-to-fed transfer, and that their key concern is\nfuture liability regarding environmental cleanup. They have not perfected the transfer\narrangement, so the Navy has been in discussions with the VA in lieu of USF&W. Because\nthere are endangered species on the property, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-10-03", "page": 3, "text": "consultation to make sure that whatever the VA does, they cannot harm the endangered species.\nMs. Potter clarified that the USF&W are not pursuing ownership of the property at this time and\nthat if the Navy goes forward with the property transfer to the VA, the Navy will retain clean-up\nobligations for the property.\nVice Chair Tam questioned what SunCal's follow-up with the VA has been to this point\nregarding the site, if their dialogue with the VA includes potential alternative sites. Ms Potter\nresponded that SunCal has had one additional follow-up meeting with the VA and that SunCal is\naware of their need ultimately, and that this issue is a key item on SunCal's Project Master\nSchedule.\nIt is noted that Chair Johnson arrived at this point in the discussion (7:52 p.m.).\nMs. Potter gave her update on SunCal, including that the first two community meetings have\nbeen scheduled, the first on 10/24 at Mastick Senior Center. The agenda for this meeting\nincludes introduction of SunCal and their partners to the community, framing the project and\ntheir approach to the project, and site constraints. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled on\n12/12 at the O'club to solicit feedback from community regarding the range of development\nscenarios, and their key focus to continue surveying property and preparing to do sampling - the\ntechnical work to support the land-planning effort.\nMember Matarrese asked if we're on track with zoning issues. Ms. Potter explained that she has\nprepared an off-agenda report discussing that the status of the public trust designation protects us\nmore than locking in zoning, and recommends that staff not do anything ahead of the entitlement\nprocess. FM requested that this item be agendized.\nChair Johnson asked if the mortgage crisis is a risk to SunCal. Ms. Potter said that SunCal has\nreassured they are not impacted by that crisis. Chair Johnson wants to be kept updated of\nSunCal's activities regarding the project.\nThis report was for information only. No motion or action was required.\n3-C. Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation\nRestoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area).\nMs. Potter summarized a letter sent to the EPA requesting additional investigative work be done\nat IR Site 1. She explained that trenching activities are concluded at the site and key concerns\nidentified: no intact drums were found, but the waste had low-level radioactivity. The cost of\ndigging up and hauling off the landfill is very expensive so staff's recommendation is to take the\nNavy's approach outlined in their draft ROD to cap the landfill.\nMember Matarrese had deep concerns about the radioactive and hazardous waste and\ngroundwater migration of the contaminants out of the landfill. Dr. Peter Russell addressed the\nconcerns and explained that the landfill was closed and no waste put in for 50 years, with a good\ndeal of monitoring and investigation, it appears not to be any migration of contents. Dr. Russell\nfurther explained that 11 trenches were dug and there were no drums or containers whatsoever,\nexcept for one broken which was consistent with the Navy's supposition that what drums were\nplaced in there were crushed. It is unlikely that there are many, if any, drums. Another issue\nwas the volume of waste - the Navy over-estimated by a factor of two or three, so accordingly,\nthey inflated the cost by two or three. Their feasibility study did not consider radioactivity in\nlandfill, and now that there is, we do not have an argument that the cost for the removal is at the\nNavy's estimate.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-10-03", "page": 4, "text": "Member Matarrese motioned to send a letter that is policy in nature requesting that the\nNavy excavate and remove the contents of the radioactive contaminated landfill, and\ndispense with institutional controls on surrounding properties that are deemed to be\ncleaned.\nThe motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5\nayes, o noes, and 0 abstentions.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\nThe RAB met regularly and again on Sept. 28th to discuss six alternatives for the draft feasibility\nstudy for IR Site 32. Their recommendation endorses a chemical oxidation and institutional\ncontrols for that site to alleviate groundwater contaminations.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nnone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese was contacted by a member of boating industry regarding development in\nJack London Square that will displace their annual boat show in 2009. The representatives are\ninterested in another venue for the boat show and are looking at Alameda Point. Member\nMatarrese expressed that this would be a great thing to pursue a boat show of that magnitude,\nand that it would be an economic boom for our city. He requested a report when/if this can be\ndone.\nExecutive Director, Debra Kurita, said that ARRA staff has been in discussions with the\nrepresentatives of the boat show and will update the Board with information.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nHave Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-03-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, March 5, 2008- 6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:14 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:\nEstuary Park\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and Navy\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe Navy's offer of a license, rather than a lease, and the ability of the Navy to terminate\nthe lecense on short notice was discussed. The City desired a lease, which would five the\nCity the right to use the premises for a longer period of time and would justify the\ninvestment of City money in the park. The City will not pursue an agreement any more, at\nthis time.\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):\nProperty:\nAlameda Point\nNegotiating parties: ARRA and SCC Alameda Point LLC\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nStaff provided an update on negotiations regarding Alameda Point. No action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:48\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIruna 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\nMarch 5, 2008", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-03-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-02-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday. February 1, 2006\nThe meeting convened at 7:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 4, 2006.\n2-B. Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures for Special Legal\nCounsel; Resolution Amending Resolution No. 002 Regarding the Powers and Authority\nof the General Counsel.\nTerri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out that the only difference between the City\nCouncil policy and the ARRA policy is the unlawful detainer policy.\nApproval of 2-A was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member Matarrese and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\nMember Gilmore motioned for approval of 2-B as written, with the caveats to receive a\nwritten report on unlawful detainers and revisit the policy in 6 months. The motion was\nseconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes -0;\nAbstentions - 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Presentation of the Final Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).\nAndrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, requested formal acceptance of the PDC. Acceptance of\nthe PDC represents an important step in completing some obligations made in ARRA's\nagreement with the selected master developer, APCP: complete a plan with the help of the\nAlameda community to identify the development opportunities at Alameda Point and the key\ntradeoffs and challenges.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-02-01", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\nAs described in the plan, the PDC does not represent the FINAL development plan for Alameda\nPoint. It is a planning study with the basic message that to get through an entitlement process\nand a planning process, and to actually see implementation will require some tough compromises\nand decisions that have not yet been made. The PDC clarifies that when the important decisions\nare made, all the necessary information will be available to the public and to ARRA. Important\nissues are emphasized in the Next Steps chapter. The plan for the redevelopment of Alameda\nPoint will continue to evolve as we move through the entitlement process.\nMember Daysog thanked staff for the memo provided by Darin Smith of Economic Planning\nSystems (EPS) detailing the assumptions. He requested further sources, methodologies and\nassumptions regarding information in Table 3 and in Table 4 - property taxes, assumptions in\nterms of housing values, industrial and commercial, property transfer taxes. Member Daysog\nexplained that this information would be helpful for future generations of Alamedans to track the\nfiscal health of this project.\nThere were several speakers on this item:\nBirgitt Evans - represents the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS). Thanked\nstaff and Andrew Thomas for the PDC. Discussed concerns with removal of two seaplane\nlagoon hangars (Bldgs. 11 & 12). Recommended construction of height-limited buildings to\npreserve vista for future generations.\nElizabeth Krase, AAPS - thanked Andrew Thomas. Discussed concerns regarding the timetable\nfor the Preservation and Adaptive Reuse Studies, and the potential loss of the BOQ, Big Whites,\netc.\nJoan Konrad - discussed importance of examining Measure A non-compliant alternative plan for\nAlameda Point redevelopment and safe and easy walking distance to destinations - schools,\nwork and shopping.\nDiane Lichtenstein - concerns about the constraints of Measure A. Reiterated that the PDC is\nonly a draft and wanted to emphasize the flexibility of the plans.\nHelen Sause - commended Staff and the City on the PDC, stating that the public input has been\nvaluable. Discussed priority to see the development without restrictions of Measure A. Urged\nARRA to keep flexibility in development of the PDC and keep the alternative plan that would\npermit AP to be developed in accordance with good planning principles.\nChair Johnson closed the public comment portion of this item.\nChair and Boardmembers thanked Andrew Thomas and the staff for the PDC. Member Gilmore\nwas particularly pleased with staff's response to public input and the Board's comments about\nthe Next Steps chapter. She emphasized that what's outlined in the Next Steps chapter gets\naccomplished, yet not to tie ourselves down to a specific timeline, particularly since we don't yet\nhave the property. Chair Johnson agreed, stating that it was surprising how many residents don't", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-02-01", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3\nknow that ARRA does not own the property yet. Member Matarrese repeated the notion of\nensuring ample time for dealing with Historic properties, having advanced notice for ARRA,\nPlanning, and the public - to understand what's ahead.\nMember Daysog motioned for approval of this item. The motion was seconded by Member\ndeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0\n3-B. Recommendation to Approve a 20-year Lease with the Department of Transportation\nMaritime Administration (MARAD).\nNanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager of DSD, presented the Board with the\nlease, gave an overview of MARAD, a tenant on the base since 1997, and explained that the\nlease negotiations have been going on since May 2002. The lease being presented included two\ncomponents: the lease combines the MARAD warehouse and pier uses.\nIn addition to generating, under this new lease, a proposed $1.8 M in the first two years with 3%\nincreases, MARAD is the largest electricity user in Alameda and responsible corporate citizens.\nThey' ve already spent $1M on dredging, an ARRA obligation, but MARAD put the money up\nfront. Chair Johnson discussed security fencing, possibilities of reconfiguring least intrusive\nmanner.\nMember deHaan asked whether MARAD discussed possibilities of shouldering relocation of\nHornet and the different scenarios regarding the Hornet's location. Ms Banks replied that\nMARAD couldn't make an initial investment and it is an obligation of ARRA, but that the 3%\nincrease in rent should pay for whatever decision is made. Member deHaan stated that MARAD\nshould strive to find dollars to relocate the Hornet, since it's to their benefit. Chair Johnson\nsuggested that MARAD may have better access to homeland security money.\nUnder the new lease, gross lease revenue for the first 2 years is 1.8M per year. Net is $800,000\nto ARRA Chair Johnson requested a copy of pro forma. She also emphasized an important\nattachment - Exhibit H - which outlines ARRA's obligations under the lease. Ms. Banks\nexplained that those obligations were negotiated down from the standard lease.\nMember deHaan stated that MARAD is one of the best tenants at Alameda Point, but is\nconcerned about the 20 year cost to maintain the operation, and that they're not an asset for the\nambience of the development. Member Matarrese doesn't have a problem with MARAD being\nhere, recognizing that it's a multiple-use development; there is some industrial and commercial\nuse.\nChair Johnson expressed concern about a provision, in the MARAD lease, relating to Trident.\nShe questioned why they were intertwined, and why there is not separate, employer liability\ninsurance.\nTerri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, explained that insurance is something that MARAD\nand the Federal government can't get and it's in our interest to have this insurance in place.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-02-01", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4\nMike Hampen, PM Realty Group, further explained that liability insurance of piers is required\nwhether there is a port manager or not. Ms. Banks said that the reference to Trident will be\nremoved, as there is no reference in naming the port manager in the agreement.\nMember Matarrese requested an analysis on the risk assessment and liability of lease, stating that\nstaff and the City Attorney are being paid to review leases and contracts, not the responsibility of\nthe ARRA Board (to review leases, etc.). He recommended bringing this item back and the need\nto keep MARAD as a tenant, to see the Navy in legacy.\nChair Johnson agreed with Member Matarrese's request, stating she'd like a better definition of\nwhat the potential expenses and risks are. She stated that MARAD is an excellent tenant, and we\ndon't want to lose them; we just need to understand the lease better. She also requested that the\nTrident provision be completely separate and not included in the MARAD lease.\nMember Gilmore expressed concern about the lease not being included in the packet for review.\nShe prefers to receive copies of complex documents and decide how deeply to look at the\ndocuments or how much to rely on the staff report. Chair Johnson recommended that, at the\nleast, significant attachments (like Attachment H, etc.) be summarized in the staff report, or\nbe\nincluded in the package.\nWithout a formal motion, all members agreed to continue this item to the March 1, 2006\nARRA meeting with a request for a more detailed analysis of the ARRA's risk assessment\nand obligations under the MARAD lease.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese gave an overview of the Jan 5th meeting: The major item on the agenda was\nthe Petroleum Hydrocarbon Program update, highlighting the status and technical explanations\nof the remediation taking place on sites spread across Phase 1 and several in Phase 3. He stated\nthat there was an amazing mass of contaminants being removed: jet fuel, gasoline, etc. The next\nRAB meeting is Thursday, Feb 9.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speaker slips.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan requested an update on the Tinker Ave. / Webster St. exchange, stating that it is\nkey to fully developing FISC.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-02-01", "page": 5, "text": "Page 5\nMember Matarrese reiterated the Dec. 2004 ARRA-approved intent of requesting all ARRA\nleases (and licenses) come to ARRA, so they know what the arrangements are with tenants on\nthe property and to maintain their responsibility to the LIFOC.\nChair Johnson requested an update on the Hornet. Leslie Little, Development Services Director,\ninformed the Board that there is no lease negotiations ongoing at the time, and there has not been\nan existing lease with the Hornet for 2 years. Ms. Little will provide a report to the Board at the\nnext meeting. Ms. Little reiterated that updates are provided to the ARRA in monthly financial\nreports.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.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": "2008-10-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, October 1, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 7:36 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 Execution of a No-Cost Sublease for Alameda Development Corporation at\nAlameda Point.\nMember Gilmore motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member Tam,\nand passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - O.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Approve the Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Disposition of the\nNotices of Interest for the Homeless Accommodation/Public Benefit Conveyances for\nthe North Housing Parcel and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate the\nRequired Legally Binding Agreement\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief overview of the\nitem, stating that in November 2007, the Navy declared the North Housing Parcel, an additional\n42 acre parcel, as surplus. The ARRA, as the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) is charged with\nconducting the federal screening process, a mandated step before the Navy can dispose of\nproperty. Three Notice of Interests (NOIs) and two requests for Public Benefit Conveyances\n(PBC's) were reviewed in early September. The NOIs were analyzed against a number of criteria\nincluding what project was being proposed, how well the project met unidentified needs of\nhomeless needs assessment, financial feasibility, and the organization's capacity to carry out the\nproject. One NOI from the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), didn't\nmeet the threshold requirement and was notified that they did not meet screening process. Of the\nremaining two NOIs, the evaluation committee does not recommend moving forward with the\nNOI received form Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) and Building Futures with Women and\nChildren (BFWC), to provide location for the Midway Shelter, in the event it loses it's lease\nwhere currently located. There is a path forward to working with Navy on the existing location\nof the shelter, which the Navy has committed to in writing to retain midway shelter in current\nlocation. Also, the 42-acre site was not an appropriate location for a multi-service center, which\nshould be in central location accessible by public transit.\nThe committee is recommending the NOI received from the City Housing Authority, APC, and\nBFWC for 120 units of permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless people, with the\nrecommendation to move forward at 90 units rather than 120 units.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 2, "text": "The two PBCs received were from the City's Recreation and Park department and from Habitat\nfor Humanity for self-help housing. We are recommending the PBC from Rec and Park, and will\nindicate our support for Habitat for Humanity for 20 to 30 units of self-help housing. The Habitat\nfor Humanity PBC is approved by the federal housing agency, HUD; and the Department of\nInterior would approve the Rec and Park PBC.\nThe next step is to begin negotiating a Legally Binding Agreement (LBA). The LBA is an\nagreement document that goes forward to HUD, along with our amendment to the Community\nReuse Plan (Reuse Plan), HUD reviews the Reuse Plan and makes the ultimate determination of\nhow well it meets the needs of homeless accommodation. We are scheduling two community\nmeetings in November, on the 3rd with the Planning Board, and on Nov. 24th on the amendment\nto the Reuse Plan, and draft LBA at its Dec. 3 meeting. The statutory requirement is to get\neverything to HUD in December.\nMember Matarrese asked how HUD weighs different factors during their evaluation of the\nproposals. Ms. Potter explained that typically, the screening process regulations are broadly\ndrafted in order to give local jurisdictions a lot of leeway and opportunity for the Reuse Plan to\nmeet their needs. What they are looking for is a balance of homeless accommodation, and what\nthey call \"other community goals\", in terms of job generation, economic development, housing,\nand open space. Member Matarrese asked if there is a previous process which we were involved\nin. Ms. Potter replied that the 1996 Community Reuse Plan was the last time we were involved\nin that process. Member Matarrese informed staff and the Board that he just received a letter\nfrom the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regarding the remediation of site\nwhere the Midway Shelter is located. The letter informed of DTSC's plan to evaluate the impact\nof removing viscous material and widespread contaminated material from that site. Staff will\nfollow-up.\nChair Johnson called public speakers. Doug Biggs, Interim Executive Director of the APC spoke\nin support of the city's recommendation. He discussed the homelessness crisis in today's\neconomy. Liz Varela, Executive Director of the BFWC, supports Doug Bigg's comments, and\nappreciates the City's recommendation on the BFWC NOI and its efforts of relocating the\nMidway Shelter.\nMember deHaan asked staff to give a background on the remediation requirements and how the\nNavy is going to address that. Ms. Potter explained that the south east corner of the North\nHousing parcel, there is a plume which extends to that area and will be remediated. The Navy\nhas started remediation of the plume, and we made it clear when we put out the request that there\nis an environmental issue. None of the proposals we received asked for property anywhere near\nthat site. There has been prior time-critical removal that has all been completed. Ms. Potter\nadded that there was no removal under hardscapes or roads, so anyone who will develop that site\nhas to take that in consideration.\nMember Matarrese expressed concern that we should not move forward where uncalculated\nliability for any unremediated land is passed on to any future to non-profit.\nMember Matarrese motioned to provide direction that in the Community Reuse Plan and\nin the negotiations of the LBA we include disclosure of significant liability of\nuncharacterized contamination under hardscape and contamination beyond two feet, and\nthat we have these LBAs come back to ARRA. The motion was seconded by Member\ndeHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 3, "text": "3-B. Report on Restoration Advisory Board Comment Letter on Installation Restoration\nSite 1.\nMs. Potter summarized that at the ARRA meeting on September 10, the Board received several\nletters regarding Site 1. Staff was directed to work with the environmental consultant, Dr. Peter\nRussell, to prepare a response to RAB letters. The ARRA's position is that land fill should be\ndug up and hauled off, this position has been consistent during the public comment process,\nwhich is not concluded. A final draft Record of Decision (ROD) is due on Oct. 28th, which will\ngive us further opportunity to provide comments on the final draft ROD. However, as all of this\nwork has been going on, the results of the additional trenching did not reveal waste, so the sense\nis that there is no longer a landfill at Site 1. We would like to send a letter to the Navy\nrequesting they do a little more work to determine whether a land fill is still present at Site 1.\nThe Navy began remediation on groundwater contamination.\nMember Matarrese reminded staff that the original concern expressed was, not that there was a\nlandfill, but that it was uncharacterized and unknown. He wants to make sure all contaminated\nmaterials are removed, and inert ones remain in place. Ms. Potter stated that we must go through\nthe CERCLA process, and that the time-critical removal was for the material down to two feet.\nMember Matarrese asked how Site 1 could be closed if there is still objectionable material there.\nMs. Potter responded by stating that the work effort and investigation as part of IR Site 32 work\nincludes going further than two feet, and the moving of the materials allows the changing of the\nboundaries of the IR sites and what they are studying. Member Matarrese would like a risk\nassessment provided to the City with anticipated development in mind - to build a case for the\nultimate price tag for the property, i.e., if the property goes to auction, the contamination status\nwould affect the price.\nThere were two speakers on this item. James Leach, RAB member for 9 years, is there\nvoluntarily because they are experts and have done clean-up and provide oversight to a high\ndegree. George Humphreys, Co-Chair of the RAB, commented on Dr. Russell's evaluation of\nthe Site 1 issue.\nMember Matarrese motioned to accept the report with future reports to include a risk\nassessment of the significant issues being discussed from a technical standpoint. The\nmotion was seconded my Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes -\n5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.\nMs. Potter discussed two additional recommendations included in the staff report; first was the\nrequest for authorization to request that the Navy further explore issue of whether there is still a\nlandfill, and second, that staff be given authorization to prepare and send a letter on the draft\nfinal ROD. Since there is no opportunity to provide back to ARRA before it's sent, Member\nMatarrese suggested it come back to the Board at a the second Council meeting in November\n(November 18).\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the two additional recommendations, seconded by\nMember deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions -\n0.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\n- Highlights of September 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-10-01", "page": 4, "text": "Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow night and the minutes from the\nlast meeting have been presented.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the\ngoverning body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)\nThere was one speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan asked if there was an update on the GSA property behind Foster Freeze. Ms.\nPotter informed him that staff will get and update and provide it to the City Manager as an Off-\nAgenda item.\nMember Matarrese stated that the Board has received a stack of documents from SunCal, but has\nnot seen a document that fits the description of a Business Plan. He requested that staff ask\nSunCal for a business plan. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, affirmed Member\nMatarrese's request.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAiran Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.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": "2006-04-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday - April 5, 2006- 6:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy\nUnder negotiation: Price and Terms\nARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItema 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\nApril 5, 2006", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-06-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, June 1, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-C\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A\nReport from the Acting Executive Director recommending the Approval of Subleases at\nAlameda Point.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The\nmotion was seconded by Chair Johnson and passed by the following voice vote:\nAyes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nPRESENTATION\n3-A.\nPresentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning\nSteven Proud, project manager for Alameda Point, gave a brief update on Navy Negotiations,\nfocused on two fronts: submission of the conveyance proposal to the Navy; and the public planning\nprocess. The conveyance proposal was submitted to the Navy in May and is under consideration by\nthe Navy right now. There have been meetings in support of that with some of the regulatory\nagencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and EPA. The next\nmeeting with the Navy to discuss the contents of the proposal is June 2, 2005. Mr. Proud reminded\nthe public and the Board that the next public workshop is on June 8th at the Mastick Senior Center,\nstarting at 6:30PM.\nChair Johnson thanked Mr. Proud and commented on all the positive feedback she's received from\nthe public regarding the workshops: that they appreciate all the hard work and effort and how\ninformative and helpful the presentations were.\nMr. Proud gave credit to Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, for coordinating the workshops, and\nto Irma Frankel for coordinating the public outreach, and other staff members who have worked hard\nto make sure the workshops are successful.\n1\nL:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-06-01", "page": 2, "text": "Member deHaan asked when we're expecting the Navy to respond. Mr. Proud stated that we asked\nfor a response from the Navy by June 30th, which corresponds to the date in the conditional\nacquisition agreement with Alameda Point Community Partners for there election to proceed.\n3-B. Video presentation by the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM).\nMarilyn York from the Alameda Naval Museum gave a brief (4 minutes) video presentation of the\nAlameda naval Air Museum (ANAM).\nMarilyn York and Barbara Bach were two public speakers, both requesting a long term lease with\nthe right of renewal and the same terms for the ANAM.\nMember deHaan thanked them for the effort they put in it and remarked that the video was\nextremely informative. He commended them for the effort to get the shell improvements which were\nover $700,000.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITMES\n4-A. Report authorizing the Acting Executive Director to Execute a two year lease renewal (1-\nyear with 1-year owner option) with Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) for Building\n77 at Alameda Point.\nIn response to Member deHaan's question regarding why the agreement is in front of the Board if\nit's already been signed, Bill Norton explained that the agreement has not been signed by the\nmuseum association, as they indicated they want at least a 5 year and probably a 20 year lease. So\nthey have not signed it. Mr. Norton further explained that the ANAM did have a 5 year lease.\nHowever, there were performance criteria in the lease, but they did not have the ability to perform\nover a 3 year period because they did not have time to actually occupy the structure until they got a\ncertificate of occupancy in March 2004, it's not reasonable to expect them evaluated on the\nperformance measure that they were required to. The original thought was to give them this prior\nyear plus 2 years upcoming, so that we could review the performance criteria during that period of\ntime. Mr. Norton advised, based upon some of the concerns that ANAM has, to modify the item to\nauthorize the Executive Director to enter into negotiations with ANAM for the lease, rather than\nauthorizing the existing lease agreement to be signed - enter into negotiations for a new lease.\nThere were several speakers, including the representative from Red Bridge Media, Ken Robles, who\nis partnered with Veterans Administration Archival Department in Washington, D.C. in a historical\nvideo project (video taping veterans) to keep the history alive.\nMember Matarrese motioned for staff's recommendation to enter into negotiations for a\nnew lease with ANAM. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - O.\n2\nReuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES\\2005\\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-06-01", "page": 3, "text": "5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A\nOral report from APAC.\nChair Lee Perez was not present and the ARRA Secretary read written comments from Helen Sause\nregarding her concerns on the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Chair Johnson advised that it was\nunclear whether Ms. Sause's written note were drafted with Lee Perez as the APAC oral report, or if\nshe intended them to be just public comment.\n5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese said he would have two RAB at the July 14th ARRA meeting.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body\nhas jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)\nThere was one speaker slip, Virginia Roberts, who supports Helen Sause's comments regarding\nappointing a citizens committee to assist with the Alameda Point redevelopment.\nChair Johnson noted that public involvement is always encouraged and would like people to\ncontinue to participate in the process.\n7. COMMUNICAITONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nThere was no additional communications from the Board.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nChair Johnson advised that this item was a place holder in case it was needed, but that there was no\nitem to discuss.\n9. ADJOURNMENT\nChair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n3\nL:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES\\2005\\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-09-20", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, September 20, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 11:37 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Recommendation to Approve the Fourth Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement\nbetween the City of Alameda and East Bay Municipal Utility District.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar item was passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;\nNoes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n4.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nChair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-20.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": "2009-12-02", "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": "2010-09-01", "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": "2005-10-05", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, October 5, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-C\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Report from the Executive Director recommending the Approval of Alameda Power &\nTelecom Sublease at Alameda Point.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was\nseconded by Tony Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Presentation of the Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development concept (PDC) - A\nPlanning Feasibility Study for the Redevelopment and Reuse of the Former Alameda Naval Air\nStation.\nAndrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the revised PDC and discussed what the major\nrevisions were, including: alternative plans approaches, various constraints affecting the layout and\ndesign, and a clarification in the executive summary that the PDC is a feasibility study, and not the\nfinal \"plan\".\nThe revised PDC also included expanded discussion regarding Measure A issues, and a good\nfoundation for a solid transportation strategy. Mr. Thomas further summarized the revisions, stating\nthat the phasing program is conceptual and there was text added to include information on civic\ncommunity type facilities, churches and plazas, etc. emphasizing that the general plan calls for these\nkinds of uses. There were a number of revisions to the Next Steps chapter, primarily the\nenvironmental review and entitlement process for the first phase should our master developer choose\nto proceed.\nChair Johnson called up the several speakers who discussed the following topics:\n- concern about the insufficiency of neighborhood centers\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-10-05", "page": 2, "text": "- a representative from AAPS requested a reuse study be included in the PDC for the historic\nbuildings\n- a representative from the APC expressed their interest in continuing to be involved in the\ndevelopment plan process\n-\na representative from Operation Dignity expressed concerns about the Board accepting the\nPDC in draft form\n- representatives from HOMES and the Sierra Club expressed their appreciation and support\nwith the progress of the PDC compared to other developments.\nMember Matarrese thanked the staff for providing the input and revisions. He agreed with the\nspeaker who mentioned that the Board should not approve a draft document; and rather, approve a\nfinal document. He would like to see more information on a green standards plan and a plan for\nsustainable communities and expressed concern about the word \"feasibility study\", afraid it might be\ndismissed because it does not \"comply\" with the PDC. He further stated that the PDC document is\nstill conceptual. Members Gilmore and Daysog agreed with Member Matarrese's statements.\nMember Daysog would like to see more information on the fiscal implications of the PDC, especially\non Phase II and Phase III.\nMember deHaan reminded folks that there was a community reuse plan prior to this PDC, which\nincluded the development of commercial and industrial spaces to maximize transportation.\nMember Matarrese motioned for Council to direct staff to simulate the comments that were made\nand produce a final document for approval. He requested the document be in red-line/strikeout\nformat so that revisions are clearly seen in the document.\nCity Manager, Debra Kurita, recommended that the draft revisions be text-only to save cost. It was\nagreed by all Boardmembers to just bring back the document at the regular ARRA Board meeting in\nNovember; there was no need to make a motion for this action.\nSteven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, clarified some points to the Board. He stated that the\nPDC is a component of the conditional acquisition agreement (CAA) that we have with APCP. Other\ncomponents include getting a conveyance agreement structure set forward with the Navy and then the\ncompletion of the preliminary development concept. Based on the timing with regards to meeting\nwith the Navy, Mr. Proud recommended the revised document be brought back at the December\nmeeting, instead of November. All Boardmembers accepted this recommendation.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nThere was no report, as Member Matarrese stated the meeting was the following day.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nBill Smith spoke about various topics.\n2", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-10-05", "page": 3, "text": "Alex McElree, Executive Director of Operation Diginity, requested the ARRA Board encourage the\nCity Council to fulfill the promise they made to Operation Dignity and to the homeless through the\nhomeless conveyance of the McCain/Feinstein Act and build the 39-Units (homes).\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n3", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-19", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, April 19, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 6:11 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nPublic Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only.\nThere were no speaker slips.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A.\nStudy Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget\nActing Executive Director, Bill Norton, gave a brief overview about the work session on the\nARRA Budget and introduced Development Services Director, Leslie Little, who introduced\nstaff : Nanette Banks, Jennifer Ott, and Stephen Proud.\nLeslie Little gave a powerpoint presentation on the Budget Planning for Alameda Point. The\npresentation focused on transition planning and preparation for the development of Alameda\nPoint. The information presented expresses the existing conditions in the current ARRA\nbudget and also the implications of some of the decisions that have been made during current\nnegotiations. Ms. Little discussed two options to consider: 1) how to transition in the event\nthat the developer (APCP) elects to proceed with the development of Alameda Point and, 2)\nhow to transition if APCP chooses NOT to proceed.\nMs. Little discussed the first scenarios (APCP proceeding), including the Alameda Point\nBond, and that the activities that are currently being paid from it would transfer as direct cost\nto the developer; approximately 18 months. Other responsibilities would also shift to the\ndeveloper, leasing and property maintenance activities, other financials responsibilities like\nproject related tax increments, and current debt obligation.\nThe second option was discussed (APCP electing not to proceed). Ms Little noted that this\nissue is a \"structural deficiency\" in the ARRA Budget. She stated that there are expenditures\nthat are greater than the revenues at this point. She explained that if the developer doesn't\nelect to proceed, the key issues moving forward are: the Alameda Point Bond will be\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-19", "page": 2, "text": "exhausted some time around Sept and October; there are a number of deferred costs, or\ncapital costs, that are expected would be part of the developer's pro forma; and the debt\npayments that began to come due in 2006. Also included in the presentation was the current\nARRA staff load on the existing ARRA budget.\nMs. Little continued to discuss some challenges to the ARRA budget. She explained that by\n2006 and 7 we will have spent down our fund balance and, by 2008, we won't have enough\nto balance our budget. She discussed how a large part of the ARRA budget is contributed to\nmunicipal services -- about 1/2 of what we take in annually, $10M in revenue. She stated that\nthe presentation is intended to start the conversation about the need to either increase\ngeneral fund revenue opportunities to tackle some of the costs, or decrease the general fund\nexpenditures out at Alameda Point because we don't have the resources to continue to\nsupport them.\nMs. Little discussed the current pro forma and its assumptions regarding new public\nrevenues, primarily in property tax pass thru, the sales taxes, property transfer taxes, etc.\nwith the sale of the homes (new development) = revenues coming into the general fund.\nShe concluded the presentation, summarizing that staff is preparing for APCP to move\nforward in the next two months and that we will need to transition quickly negotiate a\ndisposition and development agreement at 18 months and move into an implementation\nmode; subsequently, if APCP does not move forward, there are implications regarding\ndealing with long term costs over time. Ms. Little mentioned a subsequent \"phase 2\" ARRA\nBudget workshop.\nCouncilmember de Haan expressed concern with the Navy's inability to fulfill the\ncommitment to the 18 mos. transition period. Stephen Proud addressed his concern by\nexplaining that we are trying to expedite the time line as much as possible, to the extent that\nthe Navy would be able to make the property available to us sooner. He discussed various\nissues on the timeline that we (ARRA) have to accomplish, specifically the environmental\nreview process.\nBoardmembers and staff discussed general leasing issues/opportunities at Alameda Point,\nwith Chair Johnson mentioning activities to attract film productions.\nMember Matarrese expressed concern about the \"structural problem\" of the ARRA Budget,\nstating that perhaps we' ve set the system up for failure - and that we may be providing\nservices that we simply cannot afford given our leasing capability. Leslie Little addressed\nhis concern by explaining that once there is a DDA, the actual costs that are being born by\nthe budget now, would have to be reduced significantly, specifically the municipal services.\nMember Gilmore asked about insurance expenses. Leslie Little explained that the tenants\nthemselves carry liability insurance as part of their lease requirement.\nMember Daysog initiated discussion about the proposed mitigation where the general fund\nreduces dependency on the ARRA and absorbs 1.8million dollars in expenses. The\nmunicipal services funding resources was discussed.\n2", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-19", "page": 3, "text": "Member Gilmore summarized the challenges of reducing the amount of expenditures in the\nARRA budget, by allowing the general fund to absorb those expenditures. Bill Norton\nreplied that staff provided the ARRA Board with this detail to see the impact of the changes\non the general fund.\n3-B.\nRecommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Direct P.M. Realty, Acting as\nProperty Manager, to Enter Into a Contract with Courtney Giampolini to Waterproof\nCity Hall West (Building One) in an Amount not to Exceed $966,650\nNanette Banks provided photos of the extensive water damage in various locations of\nBuilding 1(City Hall West). Building 1, like other buildings at Alameda Point, have\nproblems that require a lot of work, specifically asbestos remediation, lead paint and\nwaterproofing, roof and other capital upgrades. Ms. Banks introduced Rick Jones,\nconstruction manager from PM Realty Group.\nAfter Mr. Jones explained the problems with the buildings, he and Chair Johnson had\nconversation about the contractor bidding process and if this process was approved by the\nARRA. Ms. Banks explained that in an exhibit to the property management agreement with\nPM Realty, PM Realty is allowed to use their own process for selecting contractors for us.\nMember deHaan, as well as the other boardmembers, expressed concern about the almost\n$1M.cost for the building repair. Member Gilmore questioned the long-term \"guarantees\" to\nthis costly solution. She wanted reassurance that the same problems don't resurface in a\nyear, after spending $1M. Mr. Jones explained that there is a 10 yr warranty, which is pretty\nstandard in the industry.\nStaff and boardmembers discussed other options for housing City Staff. Bill Norton\nexplained that there is no other space available for city staff to move into. There was also\nfurther discussion about window replacements. Mr. Jones stated that 40 windows would be\nreplaced, and the other 200 are aluminum.\nMember Daysog stated that the ARRA is in a fiscal crises and as such non-life threatening\nprojects, like waterproofing, I believe need to be delayed especially if the professional\nopinion is that delay doesn't result in significant cost increases to the project.\nChair Johnson agreed with Member Daysog but stated that (Building 1) is a workplace for\nour workers and we can't have our city employees working in those conditions. She also\nrequested a briefing for discussion of the ARRA board the bidding process and requirements.\nThe Board approved the staff recommendation.\nStaff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-1\n(Daysog); Abstentions-0\n3", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-19", "page": 4, "text": "4. ADJOURNMENT\nChair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nG: \\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES\\2005\\April 19.Special ARRA minutes.doc\n4", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-06-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, June 6, 2007-6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 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:\nProperty:\n2151 Ferry Point, Alameda, CA\nNegotiating parties:\nCity of Alameda and Alameda Naval Air Museum\nUnder negotiation:\nLease price and terms\nARRA received an oral briefing from its Real Property Negotiator, no action was taken.\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and SunCal Companies\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding the status of\nnegotiations with SunCal, and provided negotiating direction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItema 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 6, 2007", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-09-04", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, September 4, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 9:34 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\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. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 7, 2007.\n2-B. Approve Two-Year Sublease for Architectural Glass & Aluminum at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Approve the Proposed Sale and Disposition of Surplus Property at Alameda Point, Itemized\nas Five Rapid Electric Rectifiers, One Industrial Oven, Two Abrasive Blasters, and One\nAbar Ipson IVD Machine, for a Total Amount of $84,000 in Revenue to the ARRA.\n2-D. Approval to Provide Building 24 for No Cost for Alameda Boys & Girls Club Fundraiser.\nMember deHaan pulled Item 2-D. Approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar was\nmotioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the\nfollowing voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions. Member Gilmore abstained from Item\n2-A (Aug. 7 Minutes), as she was absent from that meeting.\nMember deHaan asked why Item 2-D was brought before the ARRA on short notice. Debbie\nPotter, Base Reuse & Community Development Manager, explained that the ARRA Board meets\nonce a month, and often times requests come through, particularly from non-profits or small\nbusinesses that might not be familiar with the steps and processes necessary to approve their\nrequests. Their lack of familiarity that any requests would have to come to the board is the\nreason for the short notice, and as soon as the request was received, it was placed on the agenda.\nMs. Potter further explained that it is not unusual to take and approve requests for fee-waivers\nfrom non-profits; but in the past, this was done administratively, and just more recently, the\npolicy was to bring these requests to the ARRA.\nMember deHaan motioned to approve Item 2-D, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by\nthe following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Master Project Schedule Prepared by SCC\nAlameda Point LLC", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-09-04", "page": 2, "text": "Debbie Potter summarized the Alameda Point project to date and introduced Pat Keliher,\nSunCal's Project Manager, to present the Master Project Schedule. The ENA calls for the master\nplan to be prepared initially, and updated on a quarterly basis and presented to the ARRA. The\nfirst update of the Master Schedule will be presented in the Dec. - Jan. timeframe.\nPat Keliher walked through highlights of the Project Master Schedule and explained that the\nschedule was put together in a logical manner, first with the public planning process, which\nclearly is important to set the stage for a final development plan. The first community meeting\nwill be scheduled very soon, and consist of land, site, design constraints and charettes. The\nsecond stage of public process includes returning back to the public to present a development\nconcept. Mr. Keliher emphasized how critical it is to remain consistent and continue the public\nprocess throughout the project timeline. Next critical item on the schedule is the traffic, location,\nand infrastructure impacts of the VA issue and scope of their project. Mr. Keliher stated that\nSunCal began early on working together with the VA.\nThe next key phase is the Planning and Entitlement phase where the development concept,\npublic amenities, adaptive reuse, and historic district issues are refined. Mr. Keliher explained\nthat SunCal has met with members of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS),\nand with Chris Buckley and Richard Rutter, to evaluate buildings and uses in the historic district.\nSunCal's next key item on the schedule is the submittal of the Entitlement Application in March\n2008. Mr. Keliher did not go into detail with the balance of schedule which includes the DA,\nDDA, CAA, Business Plan, MOA, Tidelands Trust Agreement, etc. He further explained that the\nNEPA & CEQA processes can't start until project description is in place. He expressed how\ncritical the next three to six months are and that SunCal is committed to meeting the milestones.\nMember Matarrese focused on the zoning issue and asked when Zoning will be adopted. He\nrequested that the Zoning is put under the control of the City and is locked so that the City\nprotects itself. Debbie Potter explained that the city anticipates the entitlement package\n(Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment,\nZoning amendment, and Master Plan) will all come together as one package, and, pursuant to the\nENA allows this in July 2009. One of the mandatory milestones is the submittal of an initial\nentitlement package by May 2008, which will trigger the CEQA process. David Brandt, Deputy\nExecutive Director, explained that the milestone is not an actual exchange, just a framework\nagreement of how we'll proceed. Chair Johnson requested it is made clear that the milestone is a\nframework. Mr. Brandt further explained that once the CEQA process is complete, the City\nCouncil can then adopt Zoning, but legally it cannot be done without an environmental review\nprocess. Member Matarrese expressed concern about zoning changes and that any changes have\nto go thru the City so that it is not left open if the Navy decides to change the rules. Debbie\nPotter explained that the intent is to execute all required documents simultaneously such that we\nprotect our existing position as our role as the trustee. Ms. Potter assured that she will discuss\nwith the Planning dept. about whether or not the existing EIR done for the General Plan\nAmendment is sufficient, or whether we will have to undertake additional environmental review.\nAn update on this issue will be reported at the Oct. ARRA meeting.\nMember deHaan asked if the Navy will be able to meet the timeline, and if not, what the\nconsequences are. David Brandt stated that we cannot guarantee that the Navy will perform and\nwe cannot control third party delay. Debbie Potter stated that we should be hearing from the\nNavy about the schedule in the next day or so.\nMember Gilmore commented that our sense of urgency does not match the Navy's and that they\nneed to come to the realization that time is money for everyone involved. The costs of", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-09-04", "page": 3, "text": "construction, infrastructure, etc. makes the project difficult, and the factors that affect our\ndeveloper, and would affect any developer, affects the Navy as well.\nPat Keliher stated that SunCal has a tactical strategy to deal with the Navy - that they have a\nstreamlined process of sharing technical studies and other documents that underpin the CEQA &\nNEPA processes; but that there are still a lot of unknowns, including whether there will be\nfunding for clean-up. Chair Johnson compared the Oaknoll site to Alameda, that Oaknoll was a\nclean site without Tidelands Trust issues. Mr. Keliher reiterated SunCal's commitment to the\nchallenging, but necessary task, stating that SunCal would work with the City of Alameda, their\nconsultants and lobbyists, to deal with the changing climate ahead that may affect things moving\nforward.\nThe Board thanked Mr. Keliher and SunCal for presenting the Master Project Schedule and\nexpressed it was a job well done.\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n5.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n6. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.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": "2005-01-20", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n2-B\nThursday, January 20, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 8:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nPublic Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only\nThere were no speaker slips.\n3.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n3-A. Amending Resolution No. 010 establishing rules and procedures for Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority meetings by amending the starting time of regular meetings from 5:30 p.m.\nto 7:00 p.m. (requested by Boardmember Matarrese)\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was\nseconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 0.\nMember Matarrese noted that this item is approved with the intent to increase public participation.\n4.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\n4-A. Property:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and Navy\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe ARRA received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nMayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:21 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Frankel,\nARRA Secretary\n1\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\1-20-05 Special.ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-09-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, September 7, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Member Daysog presiding.\n2-B\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 19, 2005\n2-B. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to direct PM Realty Group, acting as\nProperty Manager, to enter into a contract with Manson Construction Company to dredge\nThe Alameda Point channel in an amount not to exceed $575,000.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was\nseconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 0.\n3.\nPresentation\n3-A Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.\nStephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager gave a brief update on the AP conveyance\nactivities. There is a meeting scheduled with the Navy on September 29th to discuss, and come\nto a resolution, on the \"divide' in the analysis of the value of the property. The outcome of that\nmeeting will be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting on October 5th Mr. Proud\nintroduced Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, to give an update on the Preliminary\nDevelopment Concept (PDC).\nMr. Thomas discussed staff's review of comments received from the public and from the ARRA\nBoard (of the July 14th meeting) and efforts to use this information to make revisions to the PDC.\nThe revisions include addressing and clarifying a number of issues, such as its role, its purpose,\nand the Next Steps to clarify Historic Preservation issues. The document will also be revised to\ninclude an additional appendix in response to some of the requests for more financial information\n- the financial trade offs that are embedded within the PDC. The plan is to present the revised\ndraft PDC to the ARRA Board and the public at the October 5th ARRA Board meeting.\nRevisions to the document will be in a red-lined, strikeout version so the public can very clearly\nsee where changes were made.\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-09-07", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Thomas announced that we received a $250,000 grant Metropolitan Transportation\nCommission Grant, a land planning grant to help with next phases of the planning for Alameda\nPoint, particularly around the transit center. There is also progress toward a memorandum of\nagreement with BART on a $485,000. grant, a federal earmark that was received over a year ago\nWe have been meeting with representatives from the Navy and the Local Historic Preservation\nCommunity to continue the discussion on the Historic Preservation issues that were generated by\nthe PDC, and that is in the context of the Section 106 consultation which is really a Navy lead\neffort. A briefing to discuss the PDC and the 106 consultation process with the Historical\nAdvisory Board on Alameda Point is planned for October 6th. City Staff has also been invited\nto\nattend a League of Women's Voters workshop on September 29th and November 15th\nMember Daysog called 2 speakers, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, and Neil Garcia\nSinclair of Cybertran who gave a quick update on the Cybertran/University of California/BART\ncoalition and the proposal of establishing a research center in transportation energy at Alameda\nPoint.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese was unable to attend last week's RAB meeting, so there is no report.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere was one speaker slip, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the VA,\ndevelopment at Alameda Point; and various unrelated topics as well.\n7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Daysog welcomed the new City Manager, Debra Kurita, who is also the Executive\nDirector of the ARRA, to her first ARRA meeting.\n8. ADJOURMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n2", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-07-14", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nThursday, July 14, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 6:25 p.m. with Member Gilmore presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAfter the Pledge of Allegiance Member Matarrese motioned to move the Closed Session (Item\n3-A) to the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by\nthe following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n2.\nPublic Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only\nNone.\n3.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:\n3-A. Property:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA, U.S. Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThis item was moved to the end of the agenda.\n4. PROCLAMATION\n4-A. Proclamation to members of the APAC for their dedication and unwavering commitment\nto the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nMember Gilmore addressed the audience and APAC members. She spoke about how APAC has\nhelped the community understand the challenges and issues regarding Alameda Point. Member\nGilmore then read the proclamation and handed one out to each of the APAC members.\nAPAC Chair Lee Perez thanked the ARRA Board for the opportunity to serve over the last\nseveral years - he spoke about how pleased they (the APAC) were with the response to the\nReuse Plan & the participation from the community. He also mentioned that it's been a long\nhaul over the last 12 years since they first started and they were pleased with the outcome so far.\nMember deHaan, expressed his gratitude for the leadership and dedication that Chair Perez and\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-07-14", "page": 2, "text": "all the other members of APAC contributed toward the planning efforts of Alameda Point.\nMembers Daysog, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson (who just arrived at this point) also expressed\ntheir gratitude.\n5.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n5-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of March 2, 2005.\n5-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 6, 2005.\n5-C. Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources extending the term for 90-\ndays and adding $54,000 to the budget for environmental consulting services.\n5-D. Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the approval of Subleases at\nAlameda Point.\n5-E. Recommendation to amend the approved FY 2005-2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000\nfor repairs to the Al Dewitt O'Club.\nMember Gilmore motioned to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by\nMember Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -\n0.\n6.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n6-A. Presentation of the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point\nestablishing land use goals, transportation strategy and historic preservation strategy.\nSteven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, discussed the updates on the Conveyance\nprocess with the Navy and the status of the budget. The key topic discussed was the progress\nwith planning efforts regarding the PDC and introduced the document to the Board for their\nreview.\nMr. Proud advised that there are continuing discussions with the Navy on disposal strategies and\nconstraints with the property; and that we're moving forward with the Navy regarding a conveyance\nagreement. He discussed the community meetings and the success in each of the workshops to\ntackle specific topics that helped produce this draft document (the PDC). He further discussed\nissues at Alameda Point (AP) about Navy conveyance and the land planning process.\nAndrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, focused on the Community Reuse Plan and the draft\nPDC. He discussed what the community's expectations for the development of AP and what the\nreal priorities are. He advised that the PDC was an integration of \"new\" with the \"old\"\n(Community Reuse Plan). Mr. Thomas explained the several Appendices of the PDC, which\nincluded the Transportation Strategy, specifically the Broadway/Jackson feasibility study; and\nthe Historic Preservation element.\n2", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-07-14", "page": 3, "text": "Regarding the Historic Preservation, Mr. Thomas discussed that there was a lot of community\ninvolvement with questions regarding which buildings and homes to keep and which to get rid\nof. The residential portion of the plan included 3000 new units: homes for sale and rentals.\nThere were several speakers who discussed various topics related to the PDC, including:\n- Conversion of the naval base - Measure A\n- Adequate school facilities at AP.\n- Transportation planning\n- Solar energy equipment\n- Keeping the BOQ building for Veterans or Senior Housing\n- Historic District Preservation\n- Housing for all income levels\n7.\nORAL REPORT\n7-A. Oral report from APAC.\nNo oral report.\n7-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese discussed topics from the last RAB meeting, including clean-up\nmethods, and how petroleum is being extracted. He also gave an update on the BCT activities\nand the schedule for the site management program, which lists all the clean-up activities.\n8.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNo speaker slips.\n9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting adjourned at 10:21 P.M.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n3", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.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": "2006-08-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday- August 2, 2006-5:46 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION:\nName of Case:\nKienowski Chapter 11 Bankruptcy\nARRA gave direction to legal counsel to support the Chapter 11 Plan.\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy\nUnder negotiation: Price and Terms\nStaff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. ARRA provided instructions. No\naction was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nSince 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\nAugust 2, 2006", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday. October 4, 2006\nThe meeting convened at 7:05 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 2006.\nApproval of 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.\n2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.\nMember deHaan had questions about two of the subleases due to their duration and requested\ninformation about the specific tenants, as well as an overview of current leasing prospects.\nNanette Banks, Finance and Administration of DSD, explained that TransFreight Express wants\nto relocate their corporate headquarters and distribution center at Alameda Point. The other lease\nis to Makani for Building 19 to be used as R&D and office space. It is an alternative energy\n(wind-based) company that may also be interested in using the runways for experiments. Leslie\nLittle, Development Services Manager, indicated that there continues to be ongoing interest in\nthe buildings at Alameda Point, but pointed out the obviously expensive building improvements\nnecessary to make them usable, which tends to limit some potential businesses.\nApproval of 2-B was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.\n2-C. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to Execute a contact agreement with\nWRT/Solomon E.T.C. in the amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area planning activities\nfor Alameda Point.\nMember deHaan inquired about the source of the $250,000 and whether we are in a position\ntoday to approve the contract, given the master developer situation. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse\nand Community Development Manager, explained that this is pursuant to a $250,000 grant\nreceived from MTC - with City contribution of $3,000 - for the purpose of more detailed\nplanning of the transit node. To not go forward at this time means losing the grant. This study\nwill impact future land development plans; traffic and transit issues will need to be addressed\nregardless of who the developer is.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\nThere was one speaker on this item, Diane Lichtenstein, who praised the four workshops\noutlined in the contract and requested that after each workshop a summary report to be generated\n(perhaps in the local newspaper as well as the City's website). She also recommended\nexpanding the scope of the ferry analysis beyond the half-mile radius of the station as presently\nindicated. She also requested that all drafts of the report be available electronically.\nApproval of 2-C was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member deHaan and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Status Report on East Bay Regional Park District Request for Long-Term Lease.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, stated that, at the September\nARRA meeting, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) representatives Doug Siden and Mike\nAnderson indicated that EBRPD is ready to begin funding improvements at the 26-acre\nEnterprise Park through the use of Measure AA and Proposition 12 money (totaling $500,000).\nA portion of the Proposition 12 funds ($100,000) specify that land must be secured by the end of\nthis year, and the project must be completed and the money expended by the end of next year. It\nalso requires a 20-year lease on the land. According to the staff report, there could be a smaller,\nPhase 1 lease or a lease for the entire 26 acres. There are several other leases in place that\nencumber some portions of the 26 acres, including Alameda Soccer Club (until 2008) and the\nHobby Shop (until 2010).\nMember Daysog mentioned that 11 years ago, there was concern that EBRPD wanted an RV\nparking lot as part of their plan for this land. Ms. Potter confirmed that this is no longer an\noption.\nDoug Siden, elected EBRPD representative, reiterated the funding and timing requirements. He\nintroduced Mike Anderson, Assistant General Manager, who presented a map of the proposed\narea and plans. It consists of 10.6 acres and excludes current leased properties. Ultimately, the\nDistrict would like the entire 26 acres but could start with this plan. Proposed plans include\nfamily picnic sites, clean up of the tennis and basketball courts, development of the shoreline\ntrail to tie to the existing beach area, and clean up of the beach and boat launch areas. Future\nplans include a natural planning resource area and interpretive center, as well as boating\ninstruction at the marina.\nChair Johnson pointed out that other community groups have looked at this site, and also\nquestioned what would happen if the community would rather keep some of the facilities as they\nare. Mr. Anderson responded that if the City prefers to have more community input about use of\nthis area, EBRPD could either use $100,000 of the funds somewhere else in order to not lose\nthem - trimming their ultimate project to $400,000 - or use that first $100,000 to simply clean\nup the beach area and shoreline trail. Chair Johnson stressed that more community feedback\nabout what type of use for the area is preferable is needed before committing to a 20-year lease.\nMember Matarrese felt that the primary areas to spend the $500,000 should be the beach, bay\ntrail and picnic grounds. Mr. Anderson agreed that this should be doable and hoped to move", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3\nforward in negotiating a lease for these specific areas. Member deHaan expressed his desire that\nEBRPD continue to be involved in the area and asked how the funding stream would be\nmaintained in the future. Mr. Anderson indicated that possibly a small assessment district would\nhave to be established if the project becomes larger. Member Matarrese stated that he would like\na long-term commitment from EBRPD for the area. The consensus among ARRA members and\nEBRPD was the first priority is extending the Bay Trail from the boat ramp along the beach to\nthe Hornet; if additional funds remain, the other areas will be considered.\nMember Matarrese motioned that EBRPD make improvements on the Bay Trail from the\nexisting boat ramp as far north as possible, including cleaning up the beach. If additional\nfunds remain, they would be used for the picnic area and former RV parking lot. Staff was\ndirected to negotiate a lease with EBRPD to accomplish this. Member Daysog seconded the\nmotion, and the motion passed unanimously.\n3-B. Alameda Point Project Update.\nDebbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an Alameda Point update\npresentation to the Board. The presentation included a chronology of the ARRA's negotiations\nwith the Navy and an explanation to the community on how we went from \"no cost\" to paying\n$108.5 million for the Navy property. Ms. Potter also discussed the master developer, APCP's,\nelection not to proceed with the project and presented staff's recommendation for an initial next\nstep.\nMs Potter summarized the genesis of how we got from a no cost EDC to a 108.5 million dollar\npurchase price: She explained how the ARRA's PDC and the general plan call for over 3 million\nsquare feet of commercial development. In January 2004, however, the Navy sent a letter\nrequesting that we submit a formal amendment to our \"no-cost\" EDC application to formerly\nmake the case about why we felt like we continued to be eligible for a \"no-cost\" EDC. The\nNavy's letter further stated that it could not continue to work with us to negotiate on our early\ntransfer without such an amendment. The letter also said that they were more than happy to\nnegotiate a \"for-cost\" EDC with the ARRA. Because the Navy would be the ultimate entity to\ndeciding whether or not we were still eligible for the no cost EDC and because they had clearly\ncommunicated to us that they felt we were no longer eligible and because legislation was in the\nworks to preclude no cost EDC's in the future, the ARRA made a decision that it would be more\neffective if we sat down and negotiated with the Navy for a for-cost\"conveyance. We started\nour \"New Beginnings\" with the Navy in 2004 but the federal government also eliminated no cost\neconomic development in 2004 and none of the bases that are closed as part of the BRAC 5 are\ngoing to eligible for a no cost economic development conveyance, most of those properties are\ngoing to be disposed of as is where is. So it took us a little over 2 years to negotiate with the\nNavy to prepare the PDC and to negotiate a land price. And in June of this year we concluded\nnegotiations with the Navy with a draft term sheet that included a $108.5 million dollar purchase\nprice. On September 21st, APCP withdrew from the project, citing the downturn in the\nresidential market and that they could no longer support the $108.5 million line price given the\nland plan.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4\nWith that negotiation process and chronology behind us, and the withdrawal of our Master\nDeveloper, Staff is proposing, as the initial next step, that we test the market through a request\nfor qualifications (RFQ) process with the current term sheet. In the event that we are unable to\nidentify a replacement development then we would work with the Navy on an alternate\ndisposable strategy, most likely a public sale, an approach that the Navy had been taking of late.\nChair Johnson asked about the on-going work with the Navy, in the event that a buyer under the\ncurrent term sheet doesn't come forward. Ms. Potter answered that we will continue to run our\nleasing program, and the Navy will continue to run it's environmental clean up program. Chair\nJohnson also asked about the cost of working with the Navy to move forward with alternatives if\na replacement developer isn't identified. Ms. Potter explained that the ARRA's budget did\nconsider a scenario where the master developer didn't go forward and staff is funded in the\nARRA budget and consultants would probably need far fewer consultants then we've had when\nwe've been in activity negotiations on a term sheet and those kind of things, but we would still\nneed to work with our environmental consultant and our out side counsel, those costs are\nincluded in the ARRA's budget.\nTo answer Chair Johnson's question about what types of consultants would we still continue to\nneed, Ms. Potter answered that we would continue to use an environmental consultant because\nwe comment on all of the Navy environmental clean up documents. Chair Johnson asked if we\nshould ask the Navy to pay for the consultants at that point.\nDavid Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, clarified that these are consultants that we use to\nprotect the City's interest when it comes to the work that the Navy's doing on clean up as well as\nif there gonna be issuing opinions about the tidelands trust, then we need to have our experts\nweighing in about the tidelands trust and where were believe the legal issues are and those kinds\nof things.\nMember Daysog began a discussion regarding the ARRA's no-cost EDC agreement with the\nUnited States Navy. He referenced several paragraphs of the Navy's letter to Debbie Potter dated\nApril 7, 2003 regarding the basis for the Navy approval of a no cost EDC. Member Daysog is\nvery concerned about the $108 million purchase price, stating that if APCP couldn't work\nit\nthrough, that it would be difficult to find a replacement master developer. He'd rather see the\n$108 million go toward public amenities that have been contemplated.\nThe Chair, Boardmembers and Staff discussed, at length, the challenges we faced and the\navailable options we continue to deal with in order to move forward. Member deHaan and Chair\nJohnson discussed researching a concept that looks at phases in the future to anticipate changes\nin the market. The Board also expressed their interest in going back to a no-cost EDC (build less\nresidential), but Ms. Potter explained that, according to the Navy, a no-cost EDC was dead,\nbecause a project that included less residential was not economically viable. She said, however,\nthat if the ARRA desires, we could continue discussions with the Navy about convincing them\nthat were still eligible for our no cost EDC. She further discussed that the ARRA does have an\nagreement, an executed MOA with the Navy, but that the Navy is going to require us to submit\nan amendment to that no cost EDC.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 5, "text": "Page 5\nDavid Brandt further clarified the more fundamental legal problem which is, we would have to\namend our EDC application and unfortunately, the Navy will argue that there's no more legal\nauthority over a no cost EDC so we would be essentially be giving up our no cost EDC.\nChair Johnson and Member Matarrese would like more information and analysis about whether\nwe are legally able to hold the Navy to the existing no-cost EDC agreement.\nMember Daysog expressed the importance of involving the public so that the $108 million isn't\nspent on projects that veer so far away from the community resource reuse plan and the public\namenities that have already been contemplated. Ms. Potter addressed Member Daysog's concern\nby noting that the negotiated price of $108.5 million was based on a proforma that provided\nfiscal neutrality, provided for the sports complex, provided for the open space, provided for 25%\naffordable housing, so all of the goals that has been identified over the years were taken into\naccount and provided for with that land purchase price. Granted that tax increment was pledged\nto the project that was part of it too, but it provided in all of the transit, the shuttle, the ecopath is\nall of the things that have been talked about over the last several years, were all accounted for in\nthe proforma that had the $108.5 million dollar land purchase price.\nMember deHaan asked about the process used at other closed military bases, including Mare\nIsland and the Presidio. David Brandt explained that the Presidio was conveyed under a trust but\nthat federal legislation is needed for that. Mr. Brandt said that we could approach our delegation\nto ask if that's feasible.\nThe first speaker on this item, Pam Telschow, expressed how glad she was that the ARRA was\ngoing back to consider every option and that they are not just going to jump into looking for a\nnew Master Developer. Chair Johnson expressed her opinion that she felt it was a remote\npossibility that another developer would just step right in where APCP left off. The second\nspeaker, Helen Sause, also echoed Ms. Telschow's concerns and the direction of the Board,\nurging them to select and find those developers that have very deep experiences in commercial,\nlight industrial retail, and other forms of development. She also suggested that the selection\nprocess involve the community. Chair Johnson wanted the public to have a full understanding\nthat although the Development Services Dept. has received numerous inquiries, those inquiries\nmay not be viable. The third speaker, Elizabeth Krase, recommended we find a master developer\nthat would keep keeps more of the historic buildings.\nMember Matarrese commented that he is heartened by the attendance of tonight's meeting and\nthat it's very important that we also look at the strength of our controls on the planning and our\ncity restrictions on development. He further stated that the comments from the speakers are\nvaluable and would like to see them translated into where we go forward. Member Daysog\ncommented that it's absolutely vital for the City of Alameda through the ARRA to continue to be\na leader in converting the base and to not allow the Navy to be in the drivers seat through\na\npublic action process. There was further discussion about the caretaking of the property and\nrequesting that the Navy return to those responsibilities.\nDebbie Potter summarized the direction from the Board and other issues to explore: researching\nthe legality and shear logistics of the numbers to see if we can revert back to a no-cost EDC; the", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 6, "text": "Page 6\nparallel path of moving forward with an RFQ process to see if there is a developer who wants to\nstep into the existing field; a public sale; federal legislation on a trust; caretaker issues, etc.\nA motion to initiate an RFQ and to reevaluate all other options discussed was motioned by\nChair Johnson and seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote:\nAyes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese attended the September 7th meeting, highlighting issues regarding additional\nradiological testing of sites 1,2, and 32. There was also an update on site 25, the Coast Guard\nnorth housing and a observation of a violation of the marsh crust ordinance (trenching and\ndigging). Member Matarrese would like the City to investigate further.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nPer Member Matarrese's earlier discussion of the RAB meeting regarding Site 25, Member\ndeHaan requested an update at the next regular ARRA meeting on the status of Site 25.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-05-08", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday. May 8, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 7:13 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nLena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 2007.\n2-B. Review and approve all new and existing subleases at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Disposition of Personal Property - Proposed Sale of 45 Foot Yard Tug Boat.\nItem 2-C. was withdrawn. Approval of items 2-A and 2-B. was motioned by Member\nMatarrese, seconded by Member Tam and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;\nNoes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Consideration of Master Developer Partnership Agreement and Master Developer\nSelection.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview on the\nstatus of the of the Master Developer process. She summarized that, on April 4, the ARRA\nselected Catellus and Lennar Urban as co-master developers and the Board requested they return\nwith a Partnership Agreement in 30 days. On May 2nd Catellus and Lennar submitted a non-\nbinding term sheet that described general provisions that would be included in a yet-to-be-\ndetermined Operating Agreement. The term sheet contemplated a 60-day time frame for\ncompleting the partnership agreement. The evaluation team reviewed the term sheet and\nconcluded that it raised more questions than answers regarding the potential to reach a\npartnership agreement. Missing terms included: the use of third party equity capital, how\nadditional partners could be added, and what constitutes default under the agreement. Important\nitems deferred were remedies for breach of contract, dispute resolution, percentage of vertical\ndevelopment reserved for each partner, etc. Concerns about the ultimate management structure,\ncost of third party equity funds vs. self financing and approach to development resulted in the\ndetermination that it was unlikely a partnership agreement can be negotiated that maximizes\ntimely, cost effective, market driven redevelopment of Alameda Point. Staff recommended that\nthe Board reconsider the partnership approach and select one master developer. Staff identified\nCatellus as the better partner for ARRA as they are self financing and their minimum IRR\nrequirement is the lowest.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-05-08", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\nEach of the master developer teams was given 10 minutes to make final comments (in this order:\nCatellus, Lennar, and SunCal) before the Board began discussion of the item.\nThere was one public speaker, Richard Rutter, who discussed his support of staff's\nrecommendation to select one Master Developer.\nThe following motions were made:\nMember Matarrese motioned to set aside the Partnership Agreement approach and select\njust one Master Developer. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes - 4, Noes - 1 (Gilmore).\nMember Matarrese motioned to appoint Catellus as the Master Developer. Motion was\nseconded by Chair Johnson and failed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 2 (Matarrese,\nJohnson), Noes - 3 (Tam, deHaan, Gilmore).\nMember Tam motioned to select SunCal as the Master Developer. Motion was seconded\nby Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3 (Tam, deHaan,\nGilmore), Noes - 2 (Johnson, Matarrese).\n3-B. Approve Draft Comment Letters on Record of Decision for Installation Restoration\nSites 1 and 25 and Authorize Executive Director to Submit Comment Letters to the\nNavy.\nAt the last meeting, Member Matarrese asked staff to prepare comments on the draft ROD for\nSites 1 and 25. Member Matarrese requested that the bottom-line and desires of the ARRA is\nstated right up front as an introduction of the letters.\nMember Matarrese moved to approve the letters with the edit of repeating the end goal\nright at the front of the letter. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the\nfollowing voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nThere was no report, as Member Matarrese was on vacation and did not attend the meeting.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere was one speaker, David Howard, who spoke about car-ownership for low income\nindividuals and families of the affordable housing development at Alameda Point.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-05-08", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nnone.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:57 by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nHave Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, June 4, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\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. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 7, 2008.\n2-B. Approve the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement for St. George Spirits at Alameda\nPoint.\n2-C. Approve a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Marc Associates to Extend the Term\nfor Seven Months and Add $45,000 for a Total Budget of $120,000 for Provision of\nIntergovernmental Relations Services.\nVice Chair Tam abstained from Item 2-A (May 7 Minutes) because she was absent from\nthat meeting. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1.\nThe balance 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: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Update\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an update focusing\non legislation approved by the House, and pending in the Senate, regarding the conveyance of\nAlameda Point. Staff worked with the Navy to pursue this legislation because they felt it was\nnecessary to streamline the conveyance of the property. Since 1993, there have been lots of\nbarriers and the strategy was to look at an approach that would be as efficient as possible in\nconveying the property. The legislation outlines three possible options: 1) take the June 2006\nnegotiated draft term sheet with the Navy and provide a timeframe for allowing SunCal to work\nwith the Navy and ARRA on a Term Sheet that works for them to convey the property; 2)\nprovide a land price formula that SunCal could elect to pursue if they were interested in that land\nprice formula or felt that they couldn't work out a Term Sheet with the Navy on conveyance\nterms, and; 3) in the event the master developer withdrew, allow the ARRA to work with the\nNavy to auction the property. Special legislation is necessary due to public trusts lands which\npreclude the Navy to auction the property on its own. If the bill passes, it will go into effect on\nOctober 1st.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 2, "text": "Member Matarrese requested that staff provide more detailed information under 'budget\nconsideration /fiscal impact', i.e., how much did we spend, did we exceed budget, etc. Ms.\nPotter explained that all the activities undertaken by staff and consultants to prepare the\nlegislation is an eligible reimbursement activity pursuant to the ENA with SunCal, that all costs\nare borne by SunCal. Member Matarrese would like to see these details in the staff report. He\nalso asked about the activities SunCal is currently undertaking. Ms. Potter discussed that SunCal\nis\nparticularly focused on examining sea level rise on Alameda Landing and Alameda Point, fill\nand geotechnical grading, updating the infrastructure numbers and hoping to have an updated\nproforma in 2-4 weeks that reflect those numbers. SunCal is also working on scheduling\ncommunity meetings at the end of July or beginning of August, and on Sept. 19, their\nDevelopment Concept is due.\nMember deHaan was hoping for more detail or progress report on each of the myriad activities\nthat SunCal is doing. Ms. Potter explained that staff heard the desire expressed by the Board last\nmonth for a detailed progress report. She stated that SunCal will be back next month with a\ndetailed update the Board is looking for. Member deHaan clarified the purpose of the options of\nthe legislation and Ms. Potter affirmed his clarification.\nVice Chair Tam asked for clarification on the consent calendar item just approved regarding\nincreasing Marc Associates' budget. Ms. Potter confirmed that Marc Associates is the firm that\nworked with staff and the Navy on this legislation, and that their entire effort is covered under\nthe contract amount of $120,000. In an effort to understand our coalition partners and how we\nare stacked in the bill, Vice Chair Tam commented that the Alameda Point legislation Section\n2851 is a small piece. Ms. Potter explained that the entire bill is approximately 1000 pages long\nand Alameda Point is sandwiched between a number of other bases (all branches, not just the\nNavy - including Army, Air Force, etc.) across the country that also have special legislation.\nDavid Brandt, Deputy Executive Director further explained that, in Washington DC, there are\ntwo acts: the Annual Defense Authorization Bill and the Annual Appropriations Bill, and there\ncannot be an Appropriation for any activity without first having Authorization. He stated that\nMarc Associates also works with the City and County of San Francisco and the League of Cities.\nChair Johnson commented on how effective Marc Associates has been on this defense\nlegislation.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A.\nOral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\nMember Matarrese reported that there was no RAB meeting between the last ARRA meeting and\nthis one. He did attend a walkthru of some of the sites on Saturday and has photos to share.\nMember deHaan also attended the tour, which he said was presented as an overview on the\nremediation of the sites, but the tour was sidetracked and the focus was more on the fish and\nwildlife activities.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7. ADJOURNMENT", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 3, "text": "Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAiran Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.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": "2007-11-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, November 7, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\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. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 3, 2007.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of October 16, 2007.\n2-C. Approve a Five-Year Sublease with the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) at Alameda\nPoint.\n2-D. Approve a Ground Lease at No Cost for Kids Chalk Art Project.\n2-E. Approve General Release and Compromise Agreement with The Reuse People of America,\nInc.\nMember deHaan pulled Item 2-B. (Oct. 16 Minutes) for discussion. The balance of the\nConsent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member\nGilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, o abstentions.\nItem 2-B: Member deHaan pulled this item because he wanted to clarify the action that occurred\nat the Special Meeting of Oct. 16th. He specifically addressed the item discussed at this meeting,\nItem 3-A. Establish an Alameda Point Advisory Task Force. The discussion that he understood\nwas that one member from each of the boards and commissions plus the Housing Commission\nwould be selected and that the individuals would report back to their commissions and boards.\nAt the recommendation of the Executive Director, Debra Kurita, Member Gilmore suggested we\nhold approval of Item 2-B until Item 3-C (AP Advisory Task Force: Clarification of Roles and\nResponsibilities) is discussed. Member deHaan said since he placed Item 3-C on the agenda, he\nwould pull it if Item 2-B is clarified.\nChair Johnson stated that 3-C should not be pulled and should be discussed because more\ndirection needs to be provided. Member Matarrese agreed with member deHaan to correct the\nminutes first, and agreed with Chair Johnson to keep Item 3-C on the agenda for discussion.\nDeputy Executive Director, David Brandt, further clarified that in addition to the Housing\nCommission member, that there would be a representative from the Climate Protection Task\nForce as well. All Board members agreed.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-11-07", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Johnson recommended keeping Item 3-C on the agenda, affirmed by staff that it would be\nhelpful for further discussion.\nVice Chair Tam requested a correction of the 10/16 minutes to reflect that it was Member\nMatarrese who seconded the motion, and not her.\nMember Gilmore motioned for approval of Item 2-B with the following corrections: to\ninclude full complement of the Boards and Commissions with one member representing his\nor her Board/Commission's position and reporting back to that board or commission, and\nthis includes the Climate Protection Task Force and Housing Commission representatives;\nand to reflect that Member Matarrese seconded the motion, and not Vice Chair Tam. The\nmotion was seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: 5\nayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.\nThere were two speakers on Item 2-D (Kids Chalk Art Project), Mark Wagner, who thanked the\nBoard for waiving the fee for the use of Alameda Point for the project; and Trish Spencer,\nPresident of the Alameda PTA Council, who gave a brief explanation of the project, which\nspotlights art and brings art to the students and families of Alameda schools. They plan to draw\nthe largest chalk project in the world.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Proclamation for Ken Hansen, Community Co-Chair of the FISCA RAB.\nChair Johnson proclaimed Nov. 7, 2007 as Ken Hansen Day in the City of Alameda, and\npresented the Proclamation to Mr. Hansen. Mr. Jim Sweeney also presented Mr. Hansen with a\nLetter of Appreciation from the US Navy, signed by Laura Duchnak, Director of the BRAC\nProgram Office. Mr. Mike Quillen of ERM presented a letter of appreciation and recognition to\nthe ARRA Board to honor Mr. Hansen for his contribution and achievements to the ARRA and\nthe City of Alameda.\n3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief project update:\nSunCal held its first community meeting on October 24th. There were over 200 members of the\ncommunity in attendance. SunCal introduced their team and gave a presentation which focused\non various constraints and work they have done so far. There were various technical consultants\non hand, and following the formal remarks, there was opportunity for the community to talk on a\none-on-one basis with the consultants. SunCal is preparing for a briefing with the Navy on 11/15\nregarding their progress to date. The next meeting is scheduled on 12/13 at the O'Club at 6:30\np.m.\nAt the 10/16 Special ARRA meeting, there was a request that staff prepare a stakeholder process\nfor involving the folks that have special interest in Alameda Point. An off-agenda regarding this\nitem was distributed end of last week.\nChair Johnson asked if we are meeting the benchmarks in the process and keeping the timeline.\nMs Potter replied that so far, yes, and that SunCal has two mandatory milestones on the near\nhorizon, the first is March '08 when they have to submit a development concept, along with\ninfrastructure plan and business plan; and the next milestone is May '08 where they are required\nto submit their draft master plan application.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-11-07", "page": 3, "text": "from the Planning Dept.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, wanted clarification on the task force member role\nto represent their board or commission.\nMember Matarrese discussed that the memo distributed by Andrew Thomas regarding the roles\nand responsibilities accurately captured the intent and purpose - which was to increase the\nfamiliarity with all the boards and commissions of the plan when it's finished, so they are not\nseeing it for the first time. The task force is responsible for two things: 1) report back, and 2)\nadvise SunCal on positions their boards and commissions have taken. It is a very clean and\nefficient way of getting to the point of having the boards and commissions versed in the plan as it\nis presented to them.\nVice Chair Tam expressed her concerns about the members of the task force being asked to\nrefrain from speaking at the Oct. 24th meeting until their roles and responsibilities were clarified.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-11-07", "page": 4, "text": "She explained that it is not her view that we should deprive the advisory boardmembers of their\nconstitutional right to speak out or constrain them from sharing their views and experience. We\nchose these people because of their expertise and their broad experience in Alameda and outside\n- and that these boards and commissions have chosen them to help lead the discussion. It's\nappropriate for them, once they're on the advisory task force, to interact productively with\nSunCal to ask questions, and not simply be a human tape recorder.\nMember Matarrese stated that his explanation of the roles of the task force members does not\npreclude them from asking questions. Member deHaan added that the liaison to SunCal should\nbe staff, and not the task force member.\nAndrew Thomas clarified that the advisory task force is an ad-hoc group, not a separate formal\ncommission. The task force meetings are the public workshop meetings - everything is publicly\nnoticed, there are no plans to hold \"task force\" meetings separate from the workshops.\nSpeaker, Bill Smith, spoke about various topics.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\nMember Matarrese was not able to attend the last RAB meeting and did not have a report.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nnone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan requested further discussion on the Coast Guard Housing Surplus process be\nplaced on the next Regular ARRA agenda.\nMember Matarrese also requested a report on all the fields at Coast Guard Housing. Deputy\nExecutive Director, David Brandt, stated that an off-agenda is in preparation regarding this issue.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJames Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.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": "2005-12-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, December 7, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-D\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 16, 2004\n2-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 2005\n2-C. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 1, 2005\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was\nseconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore).\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Presentation of Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).\nAndrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the \"text-only\" changes made to the July 5th Draft\nPDC. The changes were made in response to comments heard at the July and October 2005 ARRA\nBoard meetings. Mr. Thomas summarized the major changes and asked that the ARRA approve the\nchanges as well as other modifications to the text, and identify final revisions in order to bring a\nfinalized document back to the Board at its regular meeting in February 2006.\nA summary of the changes included:\n- clearer description of the purpose of the PDC, identifies it as a planning study and not a\nregulatory document without any legally binding effect.\n- there is more emphasis and clarity that the plan for Alameda Point is a mixed-use plan,\nmaintaining financial feasibility and historic preservation.\n- recommending work-live ordinance.\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-12-07", "page": 2, "text": "Changes were made in the Introduction, Land Use and the Next Steps chapters emphasizing that it is\nthe City's goal to have a sustainable environmentally sensitive development at Alameda Point. The\nNext Steps chapter outlines the key issues that are still going to require additional study, particularly\nthe compromises and trade-offs. There is more description about how the non-Measure A\nalternative will be evaluated in the EIR process; and further exploration of maintaining historical\npreservation, as well as financial possibilities surrounding the historic buildings. Also included are\nthe next steps to implementing the Transportation Strategy.\nTwo appendices, the Transportation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Financial Feasibility and Fiscal\nNeutrality (Appendix E), were also revised.\nMember Gilmore allowed the several speakers to make their statements prior to the Board making\ntheir comments. The speakers discussed various PDC-related topics, including Historic\nPreservation concerns regarding the Big Whites and the Hangars; requests for additional buildings\nidentified for Historic Preservation be placed on the HAB agenda/study list for February, and to\nrequest and Historic Preservation Master Plan and an Adaptive Reuse Study to be done soon, or as\npart of the Navy's Section 106 process. Also discussed concerns about the Seaplane Lagoon\ndevelopment encroachments and non-measure A alternatives. Consideration of Building 3 for the\nNeptune Beach Amusement Museum was discussed.\nAlameda School Board representative thanked staff and the ARRA board for including the issues of\nschool facilities in the PDC. Alternatives in Action representative discussed issues regarding the\nearly termination of their lease and the ARRA's request of them for removal of a portable building.\nMember Daysog asked what were the major changes to Appendix E (Financial Feasibility and Fiscal\nNeutrality). Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that there was clarity added\nto the language and that the financial feasibility study done for the first phase will be replicated for\nsubsequent phases. There will be a better understanding of the financial feasibility and fiscal\nneutrality questions once we are clear on the development programs. Member Daysog further\ndiscussed his concern regarding the Measure A and non-Measure A options, and Phase I revenue\ngeneration. Mr. Proud explained that projections made in the document have a built-in fiscal\nmitigation payment which will come directly from project proceeds to offset public expenditures and\npublic revenues that we collect. Member Daysog requested more detail and clarity on the property\ntaxes for use on a range of services; he also requested a better understanding on the fiscal mitigation\npayment and operational issues.\nMember deHaan addressed issues in the body of the PDC and, with the consensus of the other board\nmembers, requested several action items to be completed by staff:\n1. Expand the paragraph in the Next Steps chapter to elaborate on the Historic\nPreservation - what the Navy is doing concurrent with us on their studies.\n2.\nProvide more clarity on the commercial development plan for the 336,000 sq. ft. of\nretail and identify the commercial endeavors being pursued.\n3. Provide separate analysis (off-agenda) on the HazMat clean-up, scenario of costs\nbetween single family vs. multi family, etc. for financial feasibility.\n4. Regarding the timeline and series of studies to be completed on the Historic\n2", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-12-07", "page": 3, "text": "Preservation: Emphasize the need to get information at the earliest possible date so that\nthe information could be used in the process of developing a plan which is then\nultimately evaluated in the EIR, and NOT when the final EIR comes out.\n5. Appendix E - What would Phase I of Fiscal Mitigation payment be? And an\nexplanation of why we are not contemplating municipal services fee (like Bayport)?\n6. Continued emphasis that this \"Preliminary\" plan document is a step to a \"Final' plan.\nAll Boardmembers accepted staff recommendation to bring back a Final version of the PDC in\nFebruary 2006.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nBoardmember Matarrese reported on the RAB meeting from November because he did not attend\nthe Dec. meeting (he was attending D.A.R.E.) There was a presentation on the remediation\nstrategies for Site 27, between Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Nelson's Marine. There were a\nwide range of options (9 remediation strategies), and there was a uniform recommendation and vote\nto advise the Navy to use the most efficient and rapid remediation strategy.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nMarilyn York, Barbara Bach, and Ken Robles of the Alameda Naval Air Museum spoke about their\nproposed 10-year lease. Chair Johnson advised that they are looking forward to receiving the lease\nfor review but have not seen it come to the Board yet.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.\nBoardmember Daysog requested the Board address Gail Greeley's issues regarding Home Sweet\nHome and moving a portable building. Member Matarrese requested an off-agenda report\naddressing this same issue.\n7. ADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n3", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-12-07", "page": 4, "text": "4", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.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": "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": "2009-07-07", "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": "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": "2007-08-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, August 7, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 9:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nVice Chair Lena Tam\nAbsent: Boardmember Marie Gilmore\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 18, 2007.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority/Community Improvement Commission of July 18, 2007.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o\nnoes, 0 abstentions.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Approve a 12-Month Contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in the\nAmount of $185,000 to Provide Negotiation Support and to Conduct a Fiscal Impact\nAnalysis for the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nLeslie Little gave an overview of the contract and work scope of Economic and Planning\nSystems (EPS), explaining that they will assist in developing the business plan and fiscal impact\nassessment for Alameda Point. Leslie affirmed Chair Johnson's question about whether the cost\nwill be reimbursed by SunCal. Member Matarrese clarified that, since EPS is the current\nfinancial consultant under contract with the ARRA, this is an extension of that contract. Chair\nJohnson encouraged holding negotiation briefings and sessions in open session, to the extent\npossible, in order to keep the public better informed on significant issues. Member Matarrese\nagreed and complimented staff, stating that having the last ENA negotiations right in full public\nview was successful.\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the contract, seconded by Member deHaan and\npassed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), 0 noes, 0\nabstentions.\n3-B. Authorize Executive Director to Initiate Negotiations for a Short Term Large Parcel\nLease and Caretaker Agreement for the Former Alameda Naval Air Station North Housing\nComplex", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 2, "text": "David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, summarized to the Board that the Navy's caretaker\nobligations for the former North Housing Complex will expire in September, and recommends\nthat the ARRA assume caretaker and maintenance responsibilities. He discussed that it would be\na simple conveyance to gain control of the property so that it can be leased. The property is still\nfully operational but deteriorating rapidly. Mr. Brandt discussed the BRAC process: as soon as\nthe property is declared as surplus, the Local Reuse Authority (ARRA) is responsible for\nscreening the property. This process could take as long as a year, but there are several options\nfor conveyance, including a public benefit conveyance for the park, a homeless accommodation\nrequest, or negotiated EDC for cost. Chair Johnson suggested trying to acquire all the property.\nMember deHaan questioned the legal ramifications for the conveyance process, and taking over\nwith a no-cost EDC. Mr. Brandt explained that the Navy's position is that they are not governed\nby the old BRAC rules - that they are applying the post-2005 \"No no-cost EDC\" rules. All\nBoardmembers agreed that the ARRA should move forward expeditiously in order to preserve\nthe parkland and prevent further deterioration of the property.\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the staff recommendation with further direction\nto convey the entire property (Marina Village and North Housing complex) to the City.\nThe motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4\nayes (Member Gilmore absent), o noes, o abstentions.\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nBill Smith spoke about various topics including clean-up problems, liquefaction, and the surplus\nhousing at former North Housing.\n5.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan discussed a side trip tour he had of Fort Ord with Mr. Michael Houlimard, and\ncompared the Fort Ord redevelopment project with the Alameda Point project. Member deHaan\nexplained that at Fort Ord, they are only redeveloping 8 acres (out of 28,000 acres) of disturbed\nland. The rest became one habitat or recreation areas. He expressed how successful the Fort Ord\nproject is because they focused on their award-winning Community Reuse Plan, which, to their\nbenefit, had many special interests, including the University of California and two major retail\noperations, one lifestyle and one big box. Even the Army itself wanted to retain some of the\nproperty. Member deHaan further explained that Fort Ord's reuse authority could dissolve in the\nnext two years, since their cash flow has put them into a positive, quite contrary to where\nAlameda Point is. Fort Ord has also begun building a phase of housing units around the existing\ngolf course (there will be 12,000 residential units total); there is one hotel and another bid for a\nRitz Carlton. Member deHaan attributes the success of the Fort Ord project to their focus on the\ncommunity reuse plan, their expedient manner and that they did not veer from that plan.\nMember Matarrese suggested agendizing a report of the Fort Ord project as an update and called\nto move the agenda.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 10:34 by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-05", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, November 5, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 7:26 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\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. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 10, 2008.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 1, 2008.\n2-C. Approve a Permanent Waiver of License Fees for Alameda Unified School District Student\nActivities.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Building 43 & Associates,\nInc. at Alameda Point.\nMember Gilmore motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member\ndeHaan, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - O.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Update - Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, summarized SunCal's\nsubmission of Development Concept pursuant to the ENA on September 19th. During October,\nSunCal presented its Development Concept to eight boards and commissions, and received\nfeedback. Comments received were provided in the staff report and presented to give the ARRA\nan opportunity to follow-up on the comments from the boards and commissions, provide\nfeedback, and to hear additional comments from the public. The draft Master Plan, a more\ndetailed land plan, is due to on Dec.19, and will be presented to the ARRA Board at its January\n7th regular meeting.\nAs SunCal has indicated, the current land plan has residential densities beyond those permitted in\nMeasure A, therefore, SunCal would need a vote of the people to implement its land plan. They\nhave until April 30, 2009 to decide to pursue a ballot initiative. Business terms between SunCal\nand the CIC is due by June 2010. There is a Council resolution of Fiscal Neutrality mandated for\nbase reuse, so a project proforma, an analyses of project cost and revenues to determine project\nfeasibility, is being prepared. Alameda Point is within the APIP redevelopment area. When\nAlameda Point is conveyed, that new development will generate revenue and value, which will\nresult in incremental increase in property taxes paid. The project must create the value to\ngenerate the tax increment that the CIC can then choose to invest in the project. There is no tax\nincrement without project, therefore it is not possible to determine which tax increment funds, if", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-05.pdf"}