{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-01-02", "page": 2, "text": "review will continue over the next 12-18 months. The conclusion of the peer review thus far is\nthat there are issues for which SunCal will discuss the mitigation techniques. SunCal has met\nwith multiple federal agencies, and their meeting with the Navy was to introduce them to the\nconcept that the PDC didn't work, and, as the existing term sheet is predicated on the PDC,\nSunCal will come back to the Navy in Jan-Feb with an outline on their strategy. Mr. Keliher\nexplained that the Alameda Point project is very complex, but nothing that is insurmountable.\nMember deHaan expressed concern with economics of the project and what issues SunCal was\nanticipating will be covered at the next public meeting. Mr. Keliher stated that it is SunCal's job\nto present more specifics on each of the different planning concepts, i.e., Measure A, non-\nmeasure A, or a hybrid of these two, etc.\nMember deHaan stated that the loose ends and driving force was the transportation issue. Mr.\nKeliher agreed that the transportation issue was a trigger and that it would take several years and\na\nlot of different agencies involved to tie up this loose end. Member deHaan commented that the\npublic meetings were well-received.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\nMember Matarrese attended the 12/6/07 meeting and the main agenda item was a summary\nhandout of 2007 activities and a look-forward to 2008 with remediation at Alameda Point. He\nprovided the handout, \"Environmental Progress at Alameda Point\" and requested that it be\nprovided to ARRA members and posted on the City's website. He requested that the map\nidentifying the sites be included with the handout.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speaker slips.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nnone.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-02-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, February 6, 2008- 7:01 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:55 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:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and Navy\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe ARRA was briefed and discussed price and terms. The Board provided instruction\nto staff. No action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:35\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\nFebruary 6, 2008", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-02-06.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": "2008-05-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, May 7, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nAbsent: Vice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 5, 2008.\n2-B. Approve Sublease for Delphi Productions at Alameda Point.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by\nMember Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions:\no\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of Quarterly Update of Project Master\nScheduled Prepared by SCC Alameda Point LLC.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an update as\nrequired in the ENA project master schedule. In March, ARRA voted to provide a six month\nextension to the mandatory milestones in the ENA, and added additional requirements of a\nconsultant costs account. She informed that Suncal has deposited the required funds pursuant to\nthe amended ENA and are moving forward to achieve the first milestone, the Development\nConcept, in September. The second activity concluded Monday evening, the May 5th\nCommunity Meeting on Transit Oriented Alternatives, an MTC-funded stationery master plan.\nThe meeting included discussions on principles and land use policies that would encourage\ntransit-supportive development at Alameda Point and ways the master developer could evaluate\nthose principles.\nMember deHaan directed questions to Mr. Pat Keliher, SunCal's project manager for Alameda\nPoint. Member deHaan asked whether staff and SunCal have a mechanism to recognize and\ntrack SunCal's progress, because the project is a monumental task. Mr. Keliher explained that\nthe build-up is to September of the Development Concept. SunCal meets weekly with staff and\nprovide monthly updates at the ARRA meetings, and there's an upcoming community meeting\nplanned. Debbie Potter further explained that staff and SunCal recognize that when ARRA\napproved the six month extension, there was a requirement, in addition to the quarterly deposit,\nto spend $117,000/month for consultant services. Staff is able to monitor what activities SunCal\nis doing with their consultants to move the planning effort forward. David Brandt, Deputy\nExecutive Director, stated that given the compressed schedule, staff is not anticipating any\ninterim products other than meeting materials, no sub plans, etc. Member deHaan discussed his", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-05-07", "page": 2, "text": "understanding of using monetary expenditure as a baseline, but was concerned that spending\nmoney doesn't necessarily mean progress. He would like a break-down in more incremental,\nmore defined product. Mr. Keliher acknowledged Member deHaan's concerns, and offered to\nchoose core topics that ARRA would like to have reports on, and speak about substantive issues\nat the meetings. Chair Johnson discussed that the milestones are already in place and it's not\nnecessary to add extra \"interim' milestones. Member deHaan explained that all he's requesting\nis for SunCal to stick with timeline, report on current activities, and provide a progress report on\nkey issues and accomplishments. Member Gilmore requested a brief description, and to provide\ncontext for what's going on, rather than just the dry milestones that are shown on the chart.\nMember Matarrese agreed and said it is worthwhile to list whether we're behind, or on, schedule;\nand to show progress on something that is significant as a milestone so that the public can\nanticipate what's going to happen. It is also useful to check things off. Member deHaan\nexpressed that he just doesn't want to see SunCal in the same position they were when they had\nto request an extension, as September is approaching quickly. Member Gilmore requested no\npowerpoints, explaining that time spent making the presentation should not take away from time\nspent working on the project. Mr. Keliher agreed.\nThere was one public speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke on various topics, including public transit.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\nMember Matarrese was unable to attend the meeting and did not have a report.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan provided feedback and expressed his concerns about the May 5th community\nmeeting regarding Transit Oriented Alternatives. He was concerned that the poor turnout was\ndue to lack of publicity about the meeting, that notice of the meeting was not posted on the main\nbulletin board at City Hall, and there was no newspaper release, except for a 1/8 page\nadvertisement. He discussed that last year's meeting on the same topic, held at Mastick Senior\nCenter, had strong community input, lots of interest, lots of dialogue and the community was\nengaged. It was well-publicized and got the community talking about the issue. Debbie Potter\nexplained that the meeting was noticed on the Alameda Point website, and an email blast to all\nprevious interested-party lists was sent, as well as an email blast to SunCal's list. There was also\na 1/4 page advertisement which ran three times in the newspaper. She acknowledged that the\nnotice was not posted on the bulletin board; but that the methods of publicity for this meeting\nwere actually the same, if not more, than what has been done in the past, with the addition of\nSunCal's email list, and has been an effective way of notifying people who have interest.\nMember deHaan expressed the importance of public relations and requested he receive the\nhandouts prior to the meetings.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-05-07", "page": 3, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nAira Ridden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.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": "2008-07-01", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, July 1, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 12:44 a.m. (7/2/08) 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\n(Chair Johnson was absent at the time of roll call, returned at approximately 12:50 a.m.,\nduring Item 3-A)\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 4, 2008.\n2-B. Approve a Sublease for Stafford Stafford Sent Packing at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Accept a $128,000 Grant from the Federal Office of Economic Adjustment in Support of\nthe North Housing Parcel Screening Process and Authorize the Executive Director to\nExecute Related Documents.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by\nMember Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions:\n0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Update\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief update on\nAlameda Point activities. She stated that the highlight was the meeting that SunCal and ARRA\nstaff had with Navy staff in San Diego on June 5th. Discussions included talking to Navy staff\nabout beginning a process to kick off renegotiation of the term sheet, and the Navy has embraced\na schedule that will get us to a term sheet by July 2009. SunCal has been working over past 6-8\nweeks on land use and infrastructure assumptions, and the costs associated with the infrastructure\nproposals. Staff has also been working on the Federal legislation which was the focus of the\nupdate at the last meeting. Not much has changed, legislation was passed by the House in May,\nand is now awaiting activity in Senate. The Senate has not yet addressed the authorization bills,\nbut we expect that it will happen in the next couple of weeks. Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher,\nSunCal's project manager on the Alameda Point project, to answer questions from the Board.\nMember deHaan asked whether the language revisions on the legislation had been ironed out.\nMs. Potter explained that the revisions were made reflective of the direction from the ARRA and\nthat the Navy and the VA are currently reviewing the proposed changes.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-07-01", "page": 2, "text": "Member Matarrese requested, for the public, that Ms. Potter comment and describe the letter the\nNavy sent to the ARRA in response to the ARRA's request for funds to provide services to\nAlameda Point. Ms. Potter explained that the Navy sent the ARRA a response that there is a 50\nyear Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) Agreement that allows us to lease the\nproperty, collect revenue, and use the lease revenues for maintenance of the property. The Navy\nfurther stated that they did not anticipate revisiting the terms of the LIFOC for maintenance\nactivities.\nMember Tam asked if the Navy is implying we increase our lease rates in order to generate the\nnecessary funds we were requesting. Ms. Potter replied that that was the conclusion the Navy\nhas eluded to, but that they were not offering to step in, nor did they offer any options to\naugmenting anything.\nMember deHaan expressed his concern and dissatisfaction with the Navy's response - given that\nthe property is in a state of deterioration and does not make economic sense - and requested\nfurther discussion. Chair Johnson agreed and requested the item be agendized and brought back\nfor discussion at the next ARRA meeting.\nPat Keliher gave a brief update on the high level topics, including infrastructure, baseline\nassumptions, and mitigation on some of the issues. He stated SunCal's goal for their consultants\nand City Staff to agree on baseline assumptions, which affect the entire land plan. He's\noptimistic that progress is being made to achieve that goal. The number one issue that SunCal\nand City staff has agreed on was what to assume for global warming, sea level rise and the\ndesign parameter, which is 18 inches - a reasonable baseline to set design standards. All of the\nland plan will be based on that assumption. Another important issue is the Floodplain and\nmitigation. SunCal is evaluating the pros and cons of three main options: 1) elevate everything,\n2) levy systems, or 3) a combination of the both. Mr. Keliher further discussed that their\nEnvironmental consultants are working with the Department of Toxic Substances Control\n(DTSC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to agree upon what these agencies will\nallow SunCal to build - housing? housing over retail? What are the requirements? SunCal is\nslowly getting answers from the agencies. Another high level topic is the Sports Complex -\nNick Kosla of SunCal has been working with Dale Lillard, Recreation and Parks Director, to\nidentify and interview three master planners for the Sports Complex. They are hoping, that in\nthe next week or two, to select a master planner and begin the public process. The next\ncommunity meeting is scheduled on August 7th, which will include a summary of the last\nmeeting and new information to date, as well as information on the Sports Complex. There is\nalso a plan to schedule the next meeting with the Navy at the end of July to discuss the Business\nModel and Plan.\nMr. Keliher informed the Board that SunCal has conducted a survey on most of the existing\nhistoric buildings to determine if their floor is above floodplain. Some hangars are still in the\nfloodplain, but most are out, including City Hall West. The survey gave SunCal an important and\ngood datapoint which is useful in evaluating their adaptive reuse formula.\nMr. Keliher concluded by informing the Board that SunCal has a new capital partner, which they\nwill bring back to the Board in August.\nThere was one speaker on this item, Bill Smith, who discussed several topics, including the 18-\ninch baseline.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-07-01", "page": 3, "text": "4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\nMember Matarrese did not have a report, as the next RAB meeting in on Thursday, July 3rd\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nChair Johnson reported that she attended the Spring Meeting for U.S. Conference with Mayors,\nand that it was very good. Member Tam asked if Chair Johnson had the opportunity to meet\nSenator Obama. Chair Johnson said she heard and saw Senator Obama speak, but did not meet\nhim. She did, however, get Bill Clinton's autograph.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m. (7/2/08) by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nArma Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, September 10, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 7:27 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 Joint Meeting of the City Council, ARRA, and CIC of\nAugust 19, 2008.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: O.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with St. Francis Electric for\nPier 2 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a contract not to exceed $1,344,744.\nLeslie Little, Development Services Director, gave an overview of the item and discussed the\nSpring 2006 sublease of MARAD approved by the ARRA for 20 years for use of the piers at\nAlameda Point. Pier 2 is an older, unreliable facility, and doesn't comply with current standards.\nTo upgrade to code, the underground transformers would need to be relocated above ground to\nmeet Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) requirements. In January 2007, the ARRA approved\ndesign work for the electrical upgrade for Pier 2 improvements and the project was bid. A bid\nwas received for $1.7M for the project. The Board then directed staff to revise the project to\nreduce the total cost. Staff and MARAD worked closely with AP&T to revise the technical\nrequirements to just upgrade the existing systems, which reduced the project cost significantly\nfor the next bid. Three bids were received, with St. Francis Electric with the lowest bid at\n$1.29M. Staff is requesting approval to add a 5% contingency with add-on alternative for\nconcrete x-raying and independent testing for the Pier 2 Electrical upgrades, for a total cost not\nto exceed $1,344,744.\nMember Matarrese commented that the impact to the ARRA budget is that we are + $400,000,\nand asked how much the ARRA owes to the City General Fund. Ms. Little replied that the\nARRA has two loan obligations, 1) ARRA debt obligation of $2.4M, and 2) the Alameda Point\nImprovement Project (APIP) of $1.258M. Member Matarrese recommended it be considered\nthat the $400,000 be paid back to General Fund as part of a loan payment. Ms. Little explained\nthat the ARRA currently carries that as an expenditure, and it would go back to the General Fund\nReserve.\nStaff and the Board discussed the ARRA lease revenues, and how they are not sufficient to cover\nexpenditures in totality. Member Gilmore asked whether there were any other large capital", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 2, "text": "projects that were going out for bid on this year. Ms. Little replied that the last roof repair project\nwas finished, as well as the preliminary assessment of the pier conditions, and that work will be\nscheduled to start the piling and pier replacements. The greatest issue is that there are old\nsystems at Alameda Point - if there were a water or sewer problem or other major activity, we\nneed cash on hand to resolve those issues.\nMember Matarrese expressed his concern that we're funding infrastructure that doesn't belong to\nus, the City doesn't own the property, it still belongs to Navy. We're adding value to what the\nNavy is putting a high price tag on. He stated that he would much rather put that money toward\nunfunded liabilities of General Fund services. Member Gilmore agreed, stating that, in theory,\nshould we have a major system malfunction, there are tenants that pay to cover these issues.\nThere should be a balance while we're in a holding position with the Navy.\nVice Chair Tam motioned for approval of the Contract with St. Francis Electric, the\nmotion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5,\nNoes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3-B. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of the Draft Development Concept.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Pat Keliher and\nPeter Calthorpe, Urban Designer, who presented a powerpoint presentation of the draft\ndevelopment concept to the Board and public. The presentation can be viewed at\nwww.alamedapointcommunity.com. After the presentation, Chair Johnson opened the item to\nthe Boardmembers for discussion. Member Matarrese asked if both plans assume a $108M\npayment to the Navy, to which Ms. Potter replied, \"yes.\"\nMember Gilmore asked Mr. Calthorpe for more specific information regarding his comment on\nthe importance of phasing the transportation enhancements so housing could keep pace with the\ncapacity in the tube, asking if it can work, and when we will know. Pat Keliher, SunCal's\nAlameda Point Project Manager, explained that Fehr & Peers, their Transportation Consultant, is\ndoing a detailed study on the traffic improvements and what the triggers are for the\nenhancements. Mr. Keliher further stated that there is $90M worth of traffic improvements up to\nthe 4000 unit threshold, and that Fehr & Peers plan to have a public meeting focused specifically\non the transportation issues.\nChair Johnson asked if the Sports Complex will be part of the SunCal Presentation, to which Mr.\nKeliher replied, \"yes.\" He said that the Business Plan will include the commercial and retail\nassumptions. Mr. Calthorpe added that the core area has to be built last, that a Main Street\nenvironment cannot be built until the retail demand is in place.\nChair Johnson opened discussion to the public speakers. There were several speakers, most of\nwhom were in favor of supporting SunCal's plan. The ones that were not in favor of the SunCal\nplan were concerned about the density of proposed mid-rise (12-20 story residential units), non-\nMeasure A compliance, and transportation issues.\nMember deHaan requested Mr. Keliher verify that the density of Alameda on the west end,\nspecifically the Summer Homes, was 30 units per acre and three-stories high. His concern\nregarding the density was the Tube traffic and the alternative of bringing the bus service through\nthe Tube. Mr Keliher assured member deHaan that all these details are currently being vetted\nout with Fehr & Peers and will be presented at their public meeting. Ms. Potter further explained\nthat there is always only going to be two lanes in the tube, and what one of the alternatives is, is\nfor a queue-jump lane for the bus, which doesn't require additional lanes. The queue-jump lane", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 3, "text": "gives priority to the buses and encourages increased ridership. Mr Keliher added that all\nquestions will be answered between the concept plan submittal and master plan submittal, and\nthat the transportation solution is a driving factor.\nMember Gilmore requested a meeting before the City Council which is focused on transportation\nissues be part of SunCal's presentation schedule. Mr. Keliher affirmed her request. Member\nGilmore further discussed that the two plans are not Measure A compliant, and asked what\nSunCal's plan was if the citizens were to reject their proposals. Mr Keliher responded by saying\nthat they have no magic Measure A plan that could be financed, and there is no third alternative,\nthey would have to start over. Member Gilmore appreciated his honesty on the matter.\nMember Matarrese addressed the transportation issue regarding commercial traffic - truck\nroutes, etc., and asked whether there was going to be a recommendation from the Transportation\nCommission. Ms. Potter explained that the plan is to route the Development Concept to all the\nboards and commissions for review and comment. Member Gilmore requested that the school\nyear commute traffic also be addressed.\nMember Matarrese requested to see a commercial and industrial component of the plan, to be\nexamined with the same depth, what might be envisioned, and what are some of the plans to\nbring the commercial and businesses in. He further discussed that Alameda does not have a\nlarge commercial tax base. Economically, the tax burden is spread and residential tax payers are\nshouldering the main load and maybe are at capacity. He would like to know the best mix of\ncommercial and how we might attract commercial business.\nVice Chair Tam discussed the importance of their role (as the ARRA Board) for the long-term in\nguiding and approving a Development Plan that future councils and the community can\nadaptively react to, manage, and govern under different challenges; as this plan will manifest\nbeyond the time that they're on this Board. She stated it is important to focus on the vision and\nthe core principles incorporated in the General plan, as they will all be pertinent 15 years later.\nChair Johnson thanked Pat and SunCal for doing a good job of working with the community and\nbeing forthright with them. It's a difficult challenge and she appreciates all their efforts.\nMember deHaan asked about the Fed-to-fed transfer to the VA of some of the property. Mr.\nKeliher replied that SunCal has to assume the potential impacts of the VA hospital whether it\nhappens or not, stating that it devalues the other phases. They would work hand-in-hand with\nthe VA, making certain that the infrastructure and traffic impacts are taken in consideration. For\nexample, a VA Hospital is a 24/7 facilities hospital, it doesn't operate just during peak hours, so\nwhen the traffic element is applied, it's another challenge. Member Matarrese requested dollar\nfigures attached to any reports on the this issues, stating that if the plan is for a Fed-to-Fed\ntransfer, then that cost should be shaved-off the $108M price for the impacts caused by the\nremaining federal land.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\n- RAB Comment Letter Regarding Installation Remediation Site 1\nMember Matarrese wasn't able to attend last meeting, but received communication, a letter, from\nCo-chair, George Humphreys, regarding the Site 1 remediation plan and Record of Decision\n(ROD) which raised a lot of questions. The ARRA board took the position that they would not\naccept uncharacterized landfill from Site 1, which was supposed to be scooped and removed", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 4, "text": "after characterization. Mr. Humphreys provided a summary of his letter and discussed some of\nthe technical details, highlighting the deficiencies in the Navy's proposed plan to remediate Site\n1.\nMr. Humphreys explained that his letter is straightforward, stating that Site 1 has been releasing\ncontaminants to the bay for a number of decades and deficiencies in the site need to be remedied.\nThere is uncharacterized industrial-type waste that could be released in event of earthquakes,\nshoreline erosion, inundation by global warming, and by burrowing animals. The City asked for\ntrenching, with the stated objectives to verify there weren't any intact drums. The trenching\nreport showed that, of the 11 trenches the Navy identified, seven of them showed levels of\nradioactive contamination. It was concluded that the radium contamination is widespread and\nscattered. He said a letter was sent from the Navy to the environmental agencies proposing to\nmove portions of Site I to Site 32, to shrink site 1, because they had found radioactive waste\ndeeper. He also described photos of liquefaction and sand boils during the Loma Prieta\nearthquake, which he explained was a mechanism of how contaminated waste could be released\nin the future, if left in place.\nMember Matarrese reiterated that we have expertise on this board and commended the RAB for\ntaking a vote, making a stand and bringing these issues to light. He had two key concerns; first\nthat the material found was not ordinary household waste, rather, it is industrial waste plus\nradioactive, which appears to be pervasive. It seems the Navy glossed over this in their proposed\nplan. Secondly, Member Matarrese commented that it was disturbing that the plan was to\nexcavate some of the radioactive material and just bury it on another part of Alameda Point. He\nrequested the Board get a technical recommendation corroborating this report so that the ARRA\ncan take a position with the Navy and the regulators that what is proposed is not acceptable.\nDavid Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, said that staff would have something by the next\nARRA meeting.\nDebbie Potter, in response to Member Matarrese's concern about the waste being relocated,\nclarified the process. She explained that, at the request of the City, additional trenching was\ndone which identified more radioactive materials than anticipated. The Navy conducted a time-\ncritical removal of hot spots at Site 1, and proposed to move some of the remaining fill to Site\n32. The plan was to grow Site 32, continue to test and modify boundaries so that Site 1\nboundaries no longer included radioactive material. All this would trigger a brand new public\nprocess for comment, new proposed plans, and provide input on how it should be remediated.\nMember Matarrese viewed the relocation plan as a stall tactic and stated that the Navy should be\nforced to remove the waste to a secure facility. Ms. Potter stated that the Navy will remove all\nradioactive waste. Member Matarrese questioned why, if it were safe, does it have to be moved\nand buried. Ms. Potter explained that it was her understanding that they are moving it in order to\nexcavate along the shoreline to address seismic issues. Dale Smith, RAB member, added that the\nmaterials being moved were hazardous, but not radioactive. Chair Johnson stated that she\ngenerally doesn't like the idea of moving the waste to another site, even if it's not contaminated.\nMr. Humphreys added that a key point is that there was no sampling of the soil inside that cell\narea, which would determine if there were any non-radioactive materials (i.e., PCBs, heavy\nmetals, etc.).\nThe Board requested that Peter Russell, Alameda Point's environmental consultant, provide a\ntechnical analysis of the materials from the RAB regarding Site 1, a written report of highlights\nafter every RAB meeting, and his analysis on Navy documents he's reviewed.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 5, "text": "5.\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\nVice Chair Tam informed the other Members that Michael Park from the Alameda Theater\nwould like to schedule a re-shoot of the Council Members for his film that previews movies,\nbecause of construction noise in the background.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAluma Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.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": "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"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-05", "page": 2, "text": "any, are available without completing the project proforma and negotiating a DDA, which is due\nin June 2010. The CIC has made no commitment of funds to the project. Its only obligation is to\nnegotiate in good faith on both the land plan and public./private partnership until the ENA\nexpires in June of 2010. The DDA must be approved by the City Council and the CIC; and until\nthe DDA is approved, it is not possible for the CIC to commit funds to the project. Under the\nterms of the ENA, SunCal is paying for all city staff costs and third party consultant costs\nconsistent with the requirement for the fiscal neutrality that we demand.\nMember Matarrese referred to the comments included in the staff report and stated that it was\nimportant to make a distinction whether the points being raised were from the boards or from\nindividuals.\nPat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager gave the presentation. The presentation\nwill be made available on SunCal's website. At the conclusion of the presentation, Chair Johnson\ncalled all of the speakers first:\nCorinne Lambden - concerned about the historical relevant structures, and would like Board to\nconsider all options of adaptive reuse before permanently destroying them. Mary Fetherolf -\nthanked SunCal for the presentation and asked a couple of process questions about where to find\nthe financial models and assumptions of the project, and about the draft Master Plan. Elizabeth\nKrase - spoke on behalf of AAPS. She discussed concerns about the historic buildings planned\nfor demolition, stating that it's not acceptable. Doug Biggs - APC has enjoyed participating in\nthe SunCal community process and supports SunCal's plan. 'Chelle Fredrick - excited to see\nthe progress that has been made, encouraged by the plan that acknowledges the unprecedented\npotential of Alameda point yet still recognizes the constraints. Diane Lichtenstein - echoed what\nMi'Chelle Frederick said. Interested in how the development will happen, and would like to see\nmore of the integration and diversity in the types of housing and structures. Helen Sause -\ncongratulated Member deHaan and Member Gilmore for their re-elections. Had a request that the\ncity undertake an active role in developing the transit system which addresses the whole island.\nGretchen Lipow - discussed fiduciary responsibility of the Alameda Point project. Nancy\nHeastings - from HOMES, complimented SunCal on its transit oriented design, and wanted to\nknow the date and review process for the transportation plan. John Knox White -requested the\nARRA really give direct direction to SunCal as to what they would like to support before the\nprocess moves forward. He discussed that we cannot try to react to the market, we need to look\nat something that has that flexibility, and a plan we can be proud of in 50 or 100 years. Arthur\nLipow - discussed the poor economy and traffic mitigation issues, and suggested an alternative\nof a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust that could have productive uses of the structures.\nSusan Decker - supports SunCal's plan and the flexibility in their process. Encouraged that it\nwould produce something that is truly an asset to Alameda. Michael Krueger - agreed with most\nof the speakers and is supportive of SunCal's plan.\nChair Johnson explained that this meeting has to be recessed in order to reconvene the PUB\nmeeting of earlier.\nMeeting was recessed at 9:15 p.m. by Chair Johnson. All Board members agreed that Item\n3-A (SunCal's Development Concept) and the balance of the 11/5 agenda be continued at a\nSpecial ARRA Meeting scheduled on November 18, 2008.\nRespectfully submitted,\nArmaElidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-18", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, November 18, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 9:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-B\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to Agreement with Russell\nResources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term\nfor 12 Months and Adding $147,500 to the Budget.\n2-B. Approve a One-year Lease with Two One-Year Options with Makani Power for a Portion\nof Hangar 12.\nMember deHaan motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member\nMatarrese, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nThis portion of the meeting is a continuation of the Regular ARRA Meeting of 11/5, which\nwas recessed by Chair Johnson. On 11/5, all Board members agreed that Item 3-A\n(SunCal's Development Concept) and the balance of the 11/5 agenda be continued at the\nSpecial ARRA Meeting scheduled on November 18, 2008.\n3-A. Alameda Point Update - Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept\n(Continued from the November 5, 2008 Regular Meeting)\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an overview\nregarding the purpose of presenting SunCal's Development Concept, which was to solicit\nfeedback and comments from the ARRA to move forward with the draft Master Plan, which is\ndue Dec. 19th\nChair Johnson called the public speakers first. Michael Krueger reiterated a point that if any\nboard member cannot support the plan for whatever reason, now is the appropriate time to\ndiscuss and raise objections, and what changes need to be made. Arthur Lipow discussed his\nconcerns about the impact of the bankruptcies of SunCal Companies to the Alameda Point\nproject. Susan Decker discussed her continued support of the Plan.\nThe Board reminded the public that the list of questions from the last meeting on Nov. 5th has\nbeen summarized and will be addressed this evening. Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point\nProject Manager, Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers, Peter Calthorpe and Peter Tagami, of\nCalifornia Capital Group, were present to answer questions.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-18", "page": 2, "text": "Member Gilmore stated that a key issue revolves around the feasibility of implementation and\nthe traffic solutions - how to move people on and off the island. She discussed this as being a big\npart of her comfort level with regard to whether the plan can be executed. She wants to see real\nlife examples of the solutions in place and working, and does not want Alameda to be the\nexperiment. Member Matarrese had two transportation-related points: how we are addressing\ncommute in the tube into China Town, and truck routes, how are we moving goods?\nMatthew Ridgway, consultant from Fehr & Peers, addressed the transportation issues. He stated\nthat traffic congestion is expected to be worse, regardless of Alameda Point redevelopment, as\nmoving traffic to/from Alameda Point is secondary next to the traffic moving through the tube\nand the 880 corridor. One of the questions was whether the option of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)\nwas out. Mr. Ridgway responded 'no', but is reserving the right of way to bus transit alignment.\nHe further discussed that the project is developer funded and funding will be sought from AC\nTransit and other funding sources. Another question was regarding buy-in of other stakeholders.\nMr. Ridgway explained that they are working with AC Transit for funding issues and Caltrans on\nBroadway/Jackson improvements, but there is a much larger group of stake holders, and they are\nnot assuming things outside of Alameda's purview.\nThe Board had requested a matrix be created. Mr. Ridgway prepared a draft which highlights\nmajor differences between the three plans, the APCP plan, the WRT plan, and the current SunCal\nplan. One of the major differences they realized was having an onsite school, which was carried\nforward to the current AP transportation strategy. A rapid bus element was not definitive in\nother plans, but in the current AP transportation strategy, it is definitive to fund a rapid bus\ntransit system, also proposing to fund construction and operating costs for an additional BRT line\nacross the whole island to the Fruitvale BART station in order to increase transit use throughout\nthe island. A bikeshare program is being proposed; and another dramatic difference is a\nprogressive parking plan, which was in the APCP plan, and is carried forward to the current plan.\nShared parking, unbundling cost of residential parking, commercial fee based-parking, parking\nmaximums, limit number of auto trips - new elements included in the summary of the matrix\nproposed to reduce auto trips.\nChair Johnson and Member Matarrese were concerned about the passive incentives of parking,\nwhich did not have the effect that was intended, because other transportation hasn't been\nprovided. Member Gilmore discussed these unintended consequences and not being able to lure\nbusiness to site because there is not enough parking. Member deHaan discussed the real life\nsituation in Alameda, that streets upon streets are constrained because of no parking. He stated\nhis concern that lack of parking has not driven Alamedans to use public transportation.\nMr. Ridgway explained that possibly parking shortages weren't in tandem with a whole host of\ntransportation alternatives. They are proposing to implement the transportation alternatives and\nprovide the level of parking that would balance with those alternatives - to be effective\neconomically and be viable. They are trying to develop a plan that addresses all these issues.\nChair Johnson stated that if we insure other transportation alternatives were available, people\nwould use it.\nVice Chair Tam discussed the City's settlement with Oakland China town over the impact of the\nAlameda Point project with traffic in China Town - a traffic level threshold was generated, and\nthe appropriate level was 1800 units. She asked Mr. Ridgway if their mitigation measures are all\nto get back to that threshold level. Mr. Ridgway affirmed, stating that they are marketing the\nplan as a green development - you live here because you only have one car or no car - the\npeople that have a lifestyle with fewer or no automobiles would want to live here.\nAnother question addressed how the water emergency transit authority will interface and will\nmeet the needs for maintenance and fueling facilities, and if this can be accommodated at", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-18", "page": 3, "text": "Alameda Point. Mr. Ridgway explained that they have looked at the issue of relocation of the\nferry terminal to the estuary or to sea plane lagoon, but have not looked at dredging or fueling\nstations; and have not reached that level of detail at this point.\nAnother request from the Board was to provide examples of transit alternatives. Fehr & Peers\nprovided a handout with information which cites several examples. Studies included comparative\nanalysis of transit uses among specific cities in the bay area. They are diligent in citing statistics\nand research conducted nationally to reduce the number of auto trips. Regarding funds for island\nwide transportation solutions, Mr. Ridgway stated that operating and capital cost are being borne\nby the Alameda Point project. In response to the request to have an analysis of how many vehicle\ntrips this plan will create, Mr. Ridgway said that a detailed phasing plan will be included in the\nDec. 19 draft master plan.\nMember Matarrese reiterated that the PDC and concept plan didn't address the issue of goods\nand services moving on and off Alameda Point - truck routes, etc. for commercial and retail. He\nstressed that this is a critical component that needs to be addressed.\nFor Peter Calthorpe addressed the next category of issues regarding adaptive reuse and light\nindustrial questions, and questions regarding examples of other transit oriented development.\nMr. Calthorpe gave a presentation of several examples of comparable mixed use developments,\nhousing over retail, live-work - in other bay area cities including Oakland, Richmond, Daly City,\nSan Mateo, and San Jose. Alameda Point has a unique component to offer which attracts entities\nto the various mixed-use elements, that Alameda Point has the ability to have a large company\n\"campus\".\nVice Chair Tam asked Mr. Calthorpe to comment on creating that buffer between the different\ntypes of uses so there are no inherent conflicts that city councils have to deal with. Mr.\nCalthorpe explained that, until you get to real industrial uses, you don't have to buffer. The\nbeauty of that mix, the services, parks and shops are double duty - if you put a store in a\ntypically residential neighborhood, it won't be used - but if you put it in mixed use - it's used\nthroughout the day, a better viability and keeps folks out of their cars. We're all focused on\ntransit mode.\nMember deHaan asked about adaptive reuse and light industry, and the compatibility of this? Mr.\nCalthorpe stated that the parcels for commercial development are not best used as light\nindustrial, rather as low-rise office, and some historic reuse that can be industrial; explaining that\nwhen you invest this much in public infrastructure, the parks and transit - you don't want to\ndedicate land to light industrial - it would be underutilization for light industrial. Member\nMatarrese wanted to discuss the potential reuse of hangars.\nPhil Tagami, of California Capital Group, continued the presentation by discussing adaptive\nreuse of the historical district structures. He discussed the tax credits and identified the protected\nhistoric districts. His focus is on 23 of 86 buildings identified, including the flight tower and the\ndive building. In total, he was asked to study 1.3M sq. ft. of space, as well as preserving and\nprotecting the open space that is part of that. One of the tests of being able to restore the\nbuildings is to give equal attention, respect to the buildings, and early involvement is key -\nhaving the opportunity to transition and put the site into reuse NOW would protect from further\ndecay, create use and activity, and generate more revenue. There is a demand for certain\nactivities and good transitional uses; now is the opportunity to have the time to become intimate\nwith these buildings and begin process of next phase.\nMember deHaan stated that the Navy had an inventory of the historical buildings and had desires\nand needs for specific ones. He asked how far we are in that process and does it relate to the 23\nof 86 buildings. Mr. Tagami stated that they are 1/3 of the way done and there is a lot of due\ndiligence that needs to be exercised. He further explained that the Navy hasn't fully processed", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-18", "page": 4, "text": "the application for the historic district. Clear policies and a well-thought-of redevelopment effort\nrequires patience, due diligence, and there will be verbal sparring - a challenge and constraint\nthat they are ready to engage in. Mr. Tagami discussed a similar situation with the Fox Theatre\nin Oakland - there were more reasons why you can't renovate the building versus why you can -\nand there's a shorter time horizon here at Alameda Point, so they are willing to explore adaptive\nreuse prior to transfer and are ready to take that risk.\nMember Matarrese asked whether Mr. Tagami has had discussions with the City regarding\ntransitional use prior to transfer and whether we are pursuing this. Member Matarrese stated that\nthis option was a way to get us closest to the plan without losing the assets out there, as there is\ncopper mining, vandalism, and no funds to secure property. Mr. Tagami said that he\nhas\nexpressed this desire and that SunCal has beginnings of communication with the City. It is an\nongoing process, but they want to mind their role, focus on due diligence and underwriting, but\nsaid that when the time is appropriate, they would be prepared to engage in that dialogue.\nMember Matarrese asked if the appropriate time is now and if they are prepared to engage in that\ndialogue now. Member Matarrese expressed to the Board that they consider giving direction to\nmove this issue as a priority. Vice Chair Tam discussed that the heavy capital makes the council\nand the board reluctant to make investments for property we don't own. Mr. Tagami explained\nthat they often go at risk and are not asking the city to go at risk. They evaluate current\nincrement expense, have a good track record of delivering value, all of which requires a team\napproach. They will expend the time, energy and money. Chair Johnson asked if DSD wants to\nmove forward with interim adaptive reuse.\nDebbie Potter explained that the key components to the partnership and business deal is the\nleasing program and at what point to transition that leasing program. These discussions are\nunderway, and staff is interested in understanding what SunCal and Phil Tagami are proposing.\nTaking over the leasing program and expanding that program, renovating and identifying what\nuses can be derived from those if renovated. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, added\nthat there was also discussion of starting with restoring one building at a time.\nChair Johnson stated that there are lots of benefits to adaptive reuse prior to transfer and that we\nshould move forward. Member Gilmore asked how many of the 23 buildings are currently under\nlease, to which Ms. Potter replied that most are not, because they are in poor condition. Member\nGilmore discussed working something out with Suncal and Mr. Tagami for taking over historic\nproperties that are not under lease, to rehab and get them for productive use, and the sooner the\nbetter. Ms. Potter explained that we should continue the analysis, what they can expect for a\nrevenue stream, and how willing are they to go at risk for buildings we don't own. Mr. Tagami\nexplained that all properties need time on task; they need to take stock of the buildings, introduce\nthem back on marketplace. It will take lots of work, and there will be obstacles and tears shed,\nbut they are up for the challenge and there is no excuse not to engage.\nMr. Keliher wanted to make it clear that SunCal has not engaged staff in any kind of detail about\nthis particular issue, in response to Chair Johnson's request that SunCal communicate with staff\non more regular basis staff so they can have a better understanding of possibilities, and they are\nnot caught by surprise. Ms. Potter stated that she didn't intend to give that impression, and that\nthe issue just hasn't been discussed in great detail. She explained that SunCal and Tagami have\nto do their deal before they can come to the City with a proposal. The Board and staff were all in\nagreement that there are advantages to moving forward with rehabilitation on the structures that\ncan be saved, and to make it a priority to move forward on discussions and do it as quickly as\npossible.\nMember Matarrese proposed that the ARRA direct staff to get into discussions with\nSunCal and Phil Tagami tomorrow and bring an update back on what the discussions have\nbeen like and what the choke points are; and this issue can be discussed as a separate\nactivity that runs parallel to the development. All Boardmembers agreed.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-11-18", "page": 5, "text": "Vice Chair Tam expressed that the key to a successful project is flexibility in reacting to the\nchanging economic conditions. In the next decade there is some expectation that the sustained\ndownturn in economy will require job creation, and looking at the potential for self sustaining for\nenergy level for the entire island, maybe there are some partnerships with AP&T, such as a solar\nfarm, or other type of renewable energy source. Vice Chair Tam supports the plan, as it reflects\nand captures sentiment that we've been hearing throughout the community and public\nworkshops. Chair Johnson stated that there needs to be discussion about the phasing of public\namenities at some other appropriate point.\nFM - reiterate some comments from last time including that the plan needs work on\nenvironmental issues such as the working waterfront, which showers noise upwind. He\nexpressed that it's an odd place to put a neighborhood. He also mentioned not wanting to see\nplans that have sidewalk dining because it's freezing cold near the waterfront - and no water\nplay in park. He cited that there are plenty of lessons in town to learn from, discussing the Bay\nStreet, Emeryville situation where there is residential over retail and the problems that come\nfrom that type of development. Member Matarrese stated examples are all around that we should\nconsider, and would like the same level of detail in the final plan that has been given to\nresidential, given to commercial and light industrial.\nMember dehaan asked SunCal about a survey that they were conducting with Alameda residents.\nMr. Keliher clarified that the survey is preliminary and is sponsored by SunCal and not the City.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative.\n- Highlights of October 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. (Continued from the November\n5, 2008 Regular Meeting)\nMember Matarrese provided a brief presentation. He discussed highlights from the ARRA\nmeeting of Sept. 10th The BCT gave an update and of the fiscal year and their activities, and\nthere were comments on the transfer of FOST for site IR 15.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 11:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-12-02", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, December 2, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 11:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-C\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Petris Air Work Industries, Inc. dba\nAlameda Aerospace at Alameda Point.\nThis item was pulled from the agenda and not addressed. It was continued to the January\n7, 2009 regular ARRA meeting. (This item was subsequently submitted as an off-agenda).\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Approve the Community Reuse Plan Amendment and Legally Binding Agreement for the\nHomeless Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel\nThis item was continued to a Special Joint Meeting of the ARRA and Housing Authority\nBoard of Commissioners on February 4, 2009.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of November 6 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese did not attend the 11/6 RAB meeting and did not have a report. He was\nattending a Council meeting on 11/6.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-12-02", "page": 2, "text": "7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 11:19 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-01-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, January 7, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:25 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 5, 2008.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of November 18, 2008.\n2-C. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 2, 2008.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Mariusz Lewandowski dba\nWoodmasters at Alameda Point.\n2-E. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Alameda Soccer Club at\nAlameda Point.\n2-F. Authorize the Sale of Four Boston Whalers to NRC for $44,500.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions:\n0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of SunCal's Draft Redevelopment Master Plan.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, addressed several topics\nactively discussed in the community and clarified that tonight's update is for information only,\nneither staff nor SunCal has requested formal action on the Master Plan. It is an opportunity for\nthe community to comment on the draft Master Plan and for the ARRA Board to provide\nfeedback to SunCal. Because SunCal's plan is not consistent with the City's charter, as it\nproposes a mix of residential structures that include multi-family rental and condo projects, this\nmaster plan can only be approved by a vote of the people. SunCal anticipates placing its plan\non the ballot for the communities' consideration in November of this year, and the ENA requires\nSunCal to notify the City no later than April 30 if it plans to proceed with the ballot initiative.\nTonight's presentation is part of the ongoing community dialogue that will continue over the next\n18 months, as the City and SunCal negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)\nfor the long term redevelopment of Alameda Point. Two key issues have been the focus of\ndiscussion: 1) the concept of a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust for Alameda Point, and", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-01-07", "page": 2, "text": "2) the amount of the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) investment in the Alameda\nPoint project and whether or not that investment of redevelopment dollars adversely impacts the\nCity's general fund which is responsible for financing critical city services.\nMs. Potter discussed the Presidio conveyance model - a transfer from military ownership via\nspecial legislation to the National Park Service and was not subject to BRAC requirements - it\nwas determined that the same conveyance model is not feasible for Alameda Point. Alameda\nPoint is subject to BRAC, was previously screened for other federal agency uses, was screened\npursuant to the McKinney-Vento act for homeless uses, and is required to be conveyed at fair\nmarket value for private ownership and reuse. The ARRA is working with the Navy to negotiate\na conveyance term sheet to transfer the property and provide for its ultimate reuse as a mixed-\nuse community that generates jobs, provides housing for all incomes, and opens up the\nwaterfront and creates new recreational opportunities for Alameda and the region. To achieve\nthat goal, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SunCal.\nMs. Potter addressed the issue of tax increment funds, clarifying that there cannot be a pledge\nof tax increment funds without a DDA, approved by the City Council and CIC in public following\na public hearing, therefore, any approval of tax increment funding will only happen after input\nand participation from the community. If tax increment funds are raised through the sale of tax\nincrement bonds, those bonds are secured and repaid solely by tax increment funds generated\nin the Alameda Point Redevelopment Project Area (APIP), and in no way obligate the City's\ngeneral fund. Based on current projections of the property value to be created by the build-out\nof the master plan, staff anticipates that a maximum of $184 million of tax increment will be\ncreated over the life of the project. This number is well short of the $700 million being\nreferenced in the community. It should also be noted that large portion of the $184 million is\nrestricted to the production of affordable housing.\nFurthermore, several years ago, the City Council adopted a resolution stating that all base reuse\nactivities must pay for themselves and be fiscally neutral to the City's general Fund. The\nCouncil recognized the task of integrating former military property into the larger Alameda\ncommunity would have a cost in terms of a need for the increase police and fire services, more\ndemand on Parks and public libraries, and increased maintenance of new roads and\ninfrastructure, and that cost should be borne by the new development. SunCal's draft Master\nPlan is supported by a Business Plan that provides for fiscal neutrality.\nMs. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager, who presented the\ndraft Master Plan via Powerpoint presentation. Following the presentation, there were several\nspeakers who discussed various issues about the draft Master Plan.\nMember deHaan is concerned about some issues in the draft Master Plan, specifically regarding\nthe plans for residential development, the sea level rising, and transportation issues. He also\ndiscussed the plans for the Sports Complex and that the plan has not changed, except for the\nprice. He continues to have strong reservations.\nIn response to public comment, Member Gilmore asked SunCal to explain its financial viability,\nthe effect of the bankruptcies of other projects, predevelopment funding and where that money\ncomes from, what happens during the predevelopment period if SunCal doesn't come up with\nthe money, and how SunCal sees the financing unfolding once we get to a DDA.\nMr. Keliher explained that throughout ENA period, SunCal is required to reimburse the City for\nany expenditures, and deposit money to spend on predevelopment dollars. This is done every\nquarter and is audited. Once we get through the ENA period, and the DDA period, and", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-01-07", "page": 3, "text": "determine how to actually finance the project, once the land is conveyed, there are several\ndifferent mechanisms, including debt & equity. With regard to the bankruptcies on the other\nprojects that SunCal was the operator on, not necessarily the owner of, most all of those were\nLehman projects. When Lehman filed bankruptcy and decided to not fund SunCal, SunCal\ndecided, involuntarily, to throw each of those projects into bankruptcy in hopes of forcing\nLehman to start to fund those. These projects are independently financed and structured and\nhave absolutely nothing to do with the Alameda Point project.\nMember Gilmore reiterated the concern regarding SunCall's ability to fund predevelopment\nexpenses. Mr. Keliher explained that if SunCal defaults under the ENA and doesn't perform, it\nis simply over. He further stated that, to date, SunCal has deposited all the funds. Both\nMember Gilmore and Mr. Keliher clarified and confirmed that the ARRA is not obligated in any\nway to reimburse SunCal for the predevelopment funds that have been spent.\nThere was discussion about the historic structures. Mr. Keliher is in agreement with the Board\nthat it's not the wisest move to proactively rip down the structures, and that SunCal will work\nwith staff on working out a process of evaluating the best direction.\nMember Matarrese offered comments for consideration, including requesting detail of\ncommercial space, and what impact of those spaces would be with regard to traffic and truck\nroutes, and the industrial-type uses. Member Tam also asked about industrial uses, mixed-use\nand residential. Peter Calthorpe described another similar project in San Jose where there was\na\nbalance of use in the commercial, civic, and retail areas. He stated that industrial\ndevelopment needs to be treated in special way, explaining that it has not yet been determined\nwhether there are industrial users that are appropriate for this site and that should be part of the\nmix.\nMember Tam asked about the BCDC sea level rise, and the 24\" that one speaker mentioned.\nMr. Keliher responded that he has heard various levels, but that no one has come out with\nspecific number to design to, an issue that SunCal does not want to ignore. Member Tam\nstated that we are at the point of our best and last opportunity to provide an economic stimulus\npackage without public subsidies or a tax on our general fund. This draft Master Plan produces\neconomic growth, a realistic transit system, and that the phasing will make it flexible enough to\nrespond to varying economic conditions, whether it's 15 years, or the next 20-30 yrs. Member\nTam stated her appreciation to staff and SunCal that the plan has been vetted very thoroughly\nwith the community.\nMember Gilmore asked what would happen if the City breached its obligations under the ENA.\nDonna Mooney, Asst. General Counsel, replied that the ENA is a contract and if the City doesn't\nfulfill an obligation to it, it would be considered a breach of contract. SunCal would have a legal\nremedy to this breach, which could include asking a court to make us come back and continue\nnegotiating, or it could be that the contract is terminated and we give back the $1 million\ndeposit.\nMember Matarrese clarified that tax increment bonds are sold based on tax increment at the\ntime the bond is sold, not based on the development for which those bonds will spur. Ms. Potter\nconfirmed and explained that, typically, when you go to the market with debt and desire to raise\nmoney through the sale of bonds, the project has to be at least three years into its development\nso that the underwriters and folks interested in purchasing the bonds have an expectation of the\ntrack record and then projections about the increment that will be generated over the life of the\nproject.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-01-07", "page": 4, "text": "At Chair Johnson's request, Ms. Potter summarized the process and milestones of the ENA so\nthat the public understands that this is not the end of the process.\nThis report was for information only and no action was taken by the Board.\n3-B. VA/Navy Presentation Regarding the Navy/VA Federal-to-Federal Transfer at Former\nNAS Alameda.\nMs. Potter gave a brief overview about the 600 acres on western portion of Alameda Point\nproperty. The Navy and VA have been in discussion for many years about its plans for the\ndevelopment of the portion of the wildlife refuge property. She introduced Claude Hutchinson of\nthe VA. Mr. Hutchinson gave his presentation via Powerpoint to the Board and community,\nsummarizing the status of the fed-to-fed transfer The plans include a 50-acre above-ground\ncolumbarium, a site for a VA outpatient clinic, and a non VA-owned hospital. Other presenters\nincluded Patrick McKay of the Navy BRAC office; Dr. Ron Chun, VA outpatient clinic site\nmanager; Don Reiker, National Cemetary Assoc. regional director; Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset\nManager of the VA; and Jayni Alsep, the VA's environmental consultant from EDAW.\nChair Johnson clarified for the public that the ARRA is not a part of the transaction between the\nNavy and the VA, and has no decision-making power in this transaction. She stated her\nappreciation to the VA on its presentation and all its efforts for community involvement. Chair\nJohnson also stated that although the ARRA has no control over this issue, we might be able to\ncooperate if the VA was willing to look at other areas of the base.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of December 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese stated that the Dec. 4 RAB meeting was 1/2 Christmas party and 1/2 highlights\nof the coming year's projects.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)\nTuesday, February 3, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 12:10 a.m. (on 2/4/09) with Chair Johnson\n2-B\npresiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, and the Special\nCIC Meeting held on January 6, 2009. (City Clerk) [CIC].\n2-B. Recommendation to authorize the use of $350,000 of Tax Exempt Bond Funds from the\nMerged Area Bond (Funds 201.11 and 201.15) and appropriate the funds for use for the\nFleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Emergency Water Repairs and Electrical Upgrades\nat Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue; and authorize FISC Lease Revenue for additional\nannual support of the Fa\u00e7ade Grant Program. (Development Services) [CIC and ARRA]\nItem 2-B was pulled for discussion. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member\nMatarrese and seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes:\nAyes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.\nDiscussion of Item 2-B: Leslie Liittle, Development Services Director, summarized the project\nand asked the Board for consideration so that the project can get underway for construction in\nthe October timeframe. The request is essentially an appropriation of $800,000 that staff\nexpects there will be a trade of some funds between the FISC and the CIC. The tax exempt\nbonds will go into the FISC water project as a Public Works project and the FISC lease\nrevenues will come back to the CIC to be used outside of redevelopment project areas and\ndoes not have the same restrictions as redevelopment funds.\nRob Ratto, PSBA Executive Director, discussed the current improvement program on Park\nStreet and urged the CIC/Board to approve the money for the undergrounding, the fa\u00e7ade grant,\nand the FISC property.\nApproval of Item 2-B was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Vice-Chair\ndeHaan, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Recommendation to consider an amendment to the Lease Agreement of 2315\nCentral Avenue between the CIC of the City of Alameda, Lessor, and Alameda Wine\nCompany, LLC, Tenant. (Development Services) [CIC]", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Little gave a brief overview of Alameda Wine Company's request to amend their lease to\nchange their hours of operation. Staff is recommending no change to their lease at this time.\nThe tenant addressed the CIC explaining her request is due to financial reasons, stating that the\nhours of 11:00 a.m.- - 4:00 p.m. are the least profitable for her business.\nMember Matarrese motioned to follow staff's recommendation to keep the status quo and\ndefer any change to the Alameda Wine Company lease until such time that there is the\neventuality and risk of the business closing. Only at that time should this item be\nbrought back to the CIC. Member Gilmore seconded the motion and it was passed by the\nfollowing voice votes: Ayes: 3 Noes: 1 (Vice-Chair deHaan) Abstentions: 1. (Member\nTam)\n3-B. Recommendation to approve a Five Year Lease and Repayment Plan/Write-off with\nAC Hornet Foundation. (Development Services) [ARRA]\nMs. Little and Nanette Mocanu, Finance & Administration Division Manager, summarized the\nHornet's' repayment plan to alleviate their debt.\nThe Board gave direction to staff to bring this item back after revisions to the repayment plan to\ninclude that the Hornet provide: a new business plan, credible financial reports, evidence of\ncreditors, and address the issue of the benefit to the ARRA of moving the Hornet for profitable\nuse of Pier 3. The Board also requested that a representative from the Hornet attend the\nmeeting when this item is brought back before the ARRA.\n3-C. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Contract with Harris &\nAssociates for On-Call Services for Review of Land Development Entitlement\nApplications for Redevelopment of Alameda Point. (Development Services) [ARRA]\nThis item was continued to the next Regular ARRA meeting on March 4, 2009.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of January 8th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese requested the Board review the handouts regarding OU-5 and OU-2B\ntechnical details. The next RAB meeting is on Thursday, 2/5.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT - ARRA, CIC\nMeeting was adjourned at 1:22 a.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-03-04", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING of the\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nHOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC)\nWednesday March 4, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 10:30 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-B\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nCommissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Torrey and Chair Johnson\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Accept Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the\nHousing Authority of the City of Alameda Held Tuesday, January 6, 2009.\n2-B. Accept Housing Authority Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008. The\nHousing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of\nCommissioners accept the audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008.\n2-C. Authorize Submission of Application for Replacement Vouchers for Esperanza\nResidents.\nApproval of the consent calendar was motioned by Commissioner Matarrese and\nseconded by Commissioner Torrey and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 6\nNoes: 0 Abstentions: 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Hold a Public Hearing to Approve an Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Final Environmental\nImpact Report for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and Fleet\nIndustrial Supply Center; Approving an Amendment to the 1996 Naval Air\nStation Alameda Community Reuse Plan for the Main Street Neighborhoods\nSubarea; and Approving a Legally Binding Agreement for a Homeless\nAccommodation at the North Housing Parcel (LBA); and Approve a Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners Resolution Approving a LBA and Related\nMemorandum of Understanding.\nElizabeth Cook, Housing Development Manager, gave a presentation which was an\noverview of the North Housing Parcel project.\nLiz Varela, Executive Director, Building Futures for Women and Children (BFWC),\nstated that they are excited about the project, as it's a great opportunity for their clients\nto make change in a safe, stable housing, with support. Doug Biggs, Executive\nDirector, Alameda Point Collaborative, commented on a few points, stating that the\nprocess has resulted in a really strong plan, and that all partners came together to\ncreate a solid program which draws on the strengths of each provider, the Housing", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-03-04", "page": 2, "text": "Authority (HA) and BWFC. He's excited that this plan will permanently end\nhomelessness. He reminded the board that the Homeless Needs Assessment was\ndone a year ago, March 2008, and today, the needs for the homeless is even greater.\nHe addressed a couple of issues discussed in the presentation, including the site plan.\nHe commented that the drawing is only a small portion of entire site, and that the\ngeneral plan principles are met: housing is closer to the Tinker Ave. transit corridor,\nwhich makes for easy access to transportation and schools.\nRegarding the\nenvironmental clean up, Mr. Biggs stated that they are constrained by the ROD (Record\nof Decision), which limits the Navy's culpability. He discussed that in the worse case to\ncomply with ROD, the HA came up with a plan built into the funding mix, as well as a\nplan which is part of the service plan to set aside money for insurance. He assured the\nBoard that the project was made to be as risk-averse as much as possible\nMember Matarrese stated a few modifications to the recommendation, including making\nsure the eight acres stay contiguous, and that the Miracle League is specified within the\neight acres; that language is worked into the LBA that addresses if the remediation\ninsurance is cross prohibitive, we don't have to take title. Chair Johnson added the\nprovision that outside counsel, or counsel, should make any changes necessary to\nensure additional safeguards. Donna Mooney, ARRA General Counsel, summarized\nthat this is an ARRA motion approving the resolution (the addendum to final EIR),\namending the Community Reuse Plan, and approving the LBA as modified. The\nmotion was made by Chair Johnson, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed\nby the following voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.\nAs the HABOC, the recommendation was to approve the resolution approving the MOU\nbetween the Housing Authority, Alameda Point Collaborative, and Building Futures for\nWomen and Children; and approving the LBA as modified. The motion was made by\nCommissioner Torrey, seconded by Commissioner Matarrese, and passed by the\nfollowing voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which\nthe governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)\nNone.\n5.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n6.\nADJOURNMENT - ARRA, HABOC\nMeeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAlumaElidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-04-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, April 1, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 4, 2009.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the ARRA/HABOC of March 4, 2009.\n2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Antiques by the Bay,\nBuilding 13, at Alameda Point.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Antiques by the Bay,\nBuilding 459, at Alameda Point.\n2-E.\nAuthorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht\nCompany at Alameda Point.\n2-F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Building\n29, at Alameda Point.\n2-G. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Hangar\n22, at Alameda Point.\n2-H. Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council, BSA Sea Scouts, Ancient\nMariner Regatta.\nStaff requested to pull Items 2-E, 2-F, and 2-G. The balance of the consent calendar was\nmotioned for approval by Vice Chair deHaan, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by\nthe following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. LRA Presentation of Treasure Island Redevelopment - Jack Sylvan, San Francisco\nMayor's office.\nJack Sylvan of the San Francisco Mayor's office gave a powerpoint presentation of the Treasure\nIsland redevelopment project. After the presentation, Boardmembers asked questions\nregarding the Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA), its relationship with the Navy, and\nif they were able to disclose their purchase price terms. Mr. Sylvan replied that he is not at", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-04-01", "page": 2, "text": "liberty to discuss the term amount. The redevelopment challenges of the ARRA and TIDA are\nvery similar (transportation, density, etc.) noting that ARRA's Measure A and environmental\nissues are a greater challenge.\n3-B. Alameda Point Update.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview of\nSunCal's work over the past 60 days, including its work toward the March 26 submittal of its\nBallot Initiative. SunCal requested a Tidelands Summary be prepared. The summary was\nprepared by City Attorney's office and transmitted to City Clerk's office. Once the notice is\npublished, SunCal can begin its signature-gathering process to be completed by June 17. If the\nrequired number of qualified signatures is received, the City Council will have to take action to\nplace the initiative on the ballot by Aug. 7. Pursuant to the ENA, SunCal has until April 30 to\nelect whether they're going to formally move forward with the ballot process or submit an\napplication that is consistent with existing law. A second milestone to be completed by April 30\nis the required deposit to begin CEQA work. Staff anticipates coming back to the ARRA in May\nwith an award of contract for an EIR consultant. SunCal will also provide a presentation and\nsummary of the components of their initiative which will include a specific plan, community plan,\na Development Agreement, and various other amendments to the zoning ordinance and city's\ngeneral plan.\nMember Matarrese requested that the timeline of the process be posted on the Alameda Point\nwebsite.\nOne speaker, Ashley Jones, directed a question to Mayor Johnson regarding her ability to be\nimpartial regarding the Measure A issue as it pertains to the redevelopment at Alameda Point.\nMayor Johnson replied that the speaker time is for the public to comment on the item and not for\ndiscussion.\nJanet Davis expressed concern about the contamination and the safeguards in place before\ndevelopment begins. David Brandt explained to Ms. Davis that the agencies that are overseeing\nthe clean up are the EPA and the DTSC. Boardmembers also recommended Ms. Davis attend\nthe RAB meetings for more information on the environmental issues of Alameda Point.\nHelen Sause spoke in support of the SunCal initiative and encouraged Alameda citizens to read\nthe information and understand it before making a decision.\n3-C. Alameda Point Environmental Issues Update: Radiological Substance at West Shore\nof Seaplane Lagoon and Block of Oversize Debris at North Shore of Seaplane\nLagoon.\nThis update is being provided to notify the ARRA board of several recent discoveries made by\nthe Navy in conjunction with a couple clean-up projects in the vicinity of the Seaplane Lagoon.\nThe Navy is currently working on amending a current clean-up contract to deal with radioactive\nmaterial, and also further investigating the block of concrete. Staff recommends that the ARRA\nsend a letter to the Navy with specific requests to resolve these issues including: requesting that\nthe Navy, as part of the analysis that they do on the radioactive material, that they rule out any\npossibility that radioactive material could have come from anything other than the outfall that is\nin the vicinity which carried a lot of waste from several buildings that dealt with radium paint -\nand if they can't rule out that as the only possible source for that material - that they conduct a\nbase-wide radiological survey; the second request: that the Navy characterize the cement block\nand inform of their decision on how to dispose of the concrete debris.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-04-01", "page": 3, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nAiran Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, May 19, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 1, 2009.\n2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Extension for General Services\nAdministration at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Accept the Interim Executive Director's Statement of Emergency Regarding Expenditures\nfor the Fire at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Approve the Project Budget\nItem 2-C was pulled by Member Tam for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar\nwas motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed\nby the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.\nItem 2-C - Member Tam asked for clarification on whether or not the debris retrieved was\ntested. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, explained that the debris was tested by\nquarter, and not tested individually, because the intent is to haul everything off. Member Tam\nalso asked what kind of thresholds should be met to determine whether it was cleaned\naccurately. Ms. Little stated that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) set\nthe standards for the cleanup.\nVice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese expressed concerns that the ARRA is now footing\nthe $1.6M bill for the demo of the burned building. They discussed Catellus' DA which obligates\nthem to do demolition, which included this building. Ms. Little explained that they're not\nobligated to do the demo because they have not moved forward with any initial phase. She\nfurther explained that an issue such as this is an unanticipated cost which clearly demonstrates\nwhat these do to the fund balance.\nMember Matarrese requested that the cost be transferred to the project and that Catellus\nremain obligated to reimburse the ARRA. He requested the City Attorney provide feedback on\nthe proper legal options we have so that the project becomes encumbered. Terri Highsmith,\nCity Attorney, understood the direction and will provide the information requested.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of Item 2-C with the provision of receiving\nfeedback from legal counsel on the possibilities of encumbering the cost to the project.\nMember Tam seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes: 5\nayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 2, "text": "3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n4.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nVice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese attended the last RAB meeting and had\nconcerns about the Navy's cleanup direction - whether it is predicated on the PDC, or if\nthe Navy is remediating according to SunCal's concept plan. Member Matarrese\nrequested clarification of their method and also requested this item be agendized and\nbrought back to the ARRA at its next regular meeting.\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-06-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, June 3, 2009- 6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and\nChair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):\nProperty:\nAlameda Point\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and SunCal\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator and provided direction on\nnegotiations.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:15\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 3, 2009", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, July 7, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 8:20 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 3, 2009.\n2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Vigor Marine, LLC at Alameda\nPoint.\n2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht Co., Inc.\nat Alameda Point.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Puglia Engineering of\nCalifornia, Inc. at Alameda Point.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by Vice\nChair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of June 4th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese was unable to attend the June 4th meeting in which the OU-2 feasibility\nstudy was discussed. The July RAB meeting is cancelled, so Member Matarrese will report on\nthe August Meeting.\nMember Gilmore asked a question about the RAB's decision to have a facilitator from the Navy\nto assist in conducting effective meetings. She was curious of the genesis of the idea, since the\nRAB has been in existence for many years, why only now is the Navy providing a facilitator?\nRAB member Michael Torrey stated that this is not the first time that the Navy is providing a\nfacilitator, but that the previous ones had to be cut due to funding issues. George Brooks, the\nNavy's Environmental Coordinator, asked if there could be another facilitator. Member\nMatarrese explained that the RAB Board changed and agreed that it was a positive step for the\nRAB.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nVice Chair deHaan asked for an update on the SunCal milestones. Assistant City\nManager, David Brandt, stated that there is a payment requirement due on July 19th, , and\nqualified signatures, or an alternative plan, was due in mid September for the City Council\nto accept. The Navy requirement is now July 2010.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m., by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-09-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, September 2, 2009- 6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and\nChair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):\nProperty:\nAlameda Point\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and SunCal\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe Executive Director discussed price and terms regarding Alameda Point. No action was\ntaken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nSeptember 2, 2009", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-09-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-10-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, October 7, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 2, 2009.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 15, 2009.\n2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Three-Year Sublease Renewal for Piedmont\nYouth Soccer Club at Alameda Point.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners in\nBuilding 29 at Alameda Point Without a Waiver in Rent and a Right of First Offer for\nBuilding 29 Only.\n2-E. Amend the Contract and Project Budget for the Fire at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center by\nAdding $500,000.\n2-F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sales Agreement, and Approve Disposing of\nPersonal Property at Alameda Point - Proposed Sale of Ship Waste Off-Loading Barge.\nItem 2-D was pulled by staff and continued to the November meeting. Vice Chair deHaan\npulled Items 2-C and 2-E for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar (Items 2-\nA, 2-B and 2-F) was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member\nMatarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\nDiscussion on Item 2-C:\nLeslie Little, Economic Development Director, summarized the staff report. There were several\nspeakers. The speakers who were against the item were concerned about the soccer field and\nAlameda resources being ceded to another city. They questioned what their fees pay for and\nthe availability of the fields to Alameda's soccer teams.\nChair Johnson explained that the Jack London Youth Soccer League created and manages the\npool of fields to which all the different soccer clubs can schedule games. The fields are not\nexclusive and are open to all the communities at all times. The annual maintenance of the field\nat Alameda Point is $40,000. Piedmont soccer does the maintenance, upkeep, take on that\nresponsibility, and Alameda clubs still have use of all the soccer fields.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-10-07", "page": 2, "text": "Member deHaan was concerned that there would be a shortage of fields or available game-play\non the field for Alameda clubs. Dale Lillard, Park and Rec Director, explained that there has not\nbeen a shortage of fields, and any shortage experienced was only due to the water rationing\nmandated by EBMUD to help with the drought, not by any scheduling conflicts.\nMember Matarrese clarified that this particular field at Alameda Point is not a City-owned field -\nit still belongs to the Navy and it is not being ceded to another city, it is being leased. He further\nexplained that it is not any different than when the buildings are leased at Alameda point -\nleasing is not restricted to Alameda only - and if that land was not leased to the Piedmont\nsoccer club, and because Alameda's Parks and Rec department didn't have the funds to\nmaintain the field, it would be a weed field.\nThere was further discussion from the representatives of the Jack London Youth Soccer Sports\nLeague, Alameda Soccer Club, and the Piedmont Soccer Club. They answered questions\nposed by the speakers and the Board, and further expressed their continued support and\nmaintenance of the Alameda Point field for the benefit of all the youth soccer clubs.\nItem 2-C was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member Tam\nand passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\nDiscussion on Item 2-E:\nLeslie Little discussed staff's request to augment the existing budget for removal of fire debris of\nBuilding 6 by $500,000. She summarized that in late March, Building 6 caught fire. The initial\ndebris removal was done, but asbestos and other contaminated building materials were found,\nand the remaining concrete tower structures were unstable. We are eligible for a $200,000\ngrant from DTSC to offset the $500,000.\nVice Chair deHaan asked what the overall cost would be when complete; and if we were going\nto hold Catellus responsible to pay back the cost. Ms. Little stated the amount to be\napproximately $2 million by completion. She further explained that under their existing DDA,\nCatellus is responsible for the demolition. There has been discussion between Catellus and the\nCity regarding what their actual obligation for cost is beyond just the regular demolition, which\nwill not be resolved until there is another amendment to their DDA.\nMs. Little also stated that the City Attorney's office has looked into whether we could put a lien\non the property so that it couldn't transfer without this obligation. There is no way around it,\nhowever, as the language of the DDA specifies that we have to deliver the property to them\nclear of liens or encumbrances.\nMember Matarrese asked how quickly, after the $500,000 is allocated, will the demolition be\ncompleted. Ms. Little stated that it would be done immediately, and that the daily cost of\nsecurity will cease also. Member Matarrese stated that the Catellus DA clearly says that\nCatellus is responsible for demolishing this building. Since we demolished it for them, we need\nto assign this cost to them. Whatever the vehicle is we need to present it to Catellus.\nMember Gilmore asked what the modification to the ARRA budget is and if there are things we\nare not going to be able to do because of this $500,000 modification. Ms. Little explained that\nthere is no line item where these funds could be taken from, so staff proposed this would come\nback to the ARRA in a budget adjustment. The funds would come out of the ARRA's cash\nbalance, rather than what is usually referred to as a fund balance.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-10-07", "page": 3, "text": "Member Matarrese motioned to approve the allocation of the $500,000 to complete the\ndemolition, and added that the entire cost of the demolition be assigned to Catellus.\nMember Gilmore seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes:\nAyes: 5, Noes: o, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of September 3rd Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese said that the highlight of the meeting was an update and discussion on Site\n1, the far northwest end of the wildlife refuge and lower part of Northwest Territories. The Navy\npresentation refreshed the RAB on boundaries and milestones, the Navy's containment\npreference to use an engineered four-foot soil cover, and their path forward which included a\ntimeline to Record of Decision (ROD) and remedial action to begin in December of 2010. The\nRAB's discussion mostly challenged the assessment of that contamination - the fact that the\nsample site data was old and inadequate. Member Matarrese stated that discussions at the\nmeetings have been heated and required a facilitator. There are people knowledgeable enough\nto ask very technical questions and the bottom line is that no one is satisfied with the Navy's\nproposal to cap it with four feet of soil. Member Matarrese was not able to attend the October 1\nRAB meeting. The next meeting is Nov. 5.\nMember Tam asked what the Navy plans to do with the feedback and their plans to go forward\nwith capping, even to our objection. Member Matarrese explained that the Navy was supposed\nto have a final ROD by September 17th, but does not know if it has been published. The Navy is\nalso supposed to go through the pre-design work this December of whatever solution there\nmight be. ARRA's letter to the Navy stating the objection to the soil capping was also copied to\nthe Congressional delegation, which may garner a little more attention to slow this process\ndown and get a different resolution. Member Matarrese also complimented the ARRA's\nenvironmental consultant, Dr. Peter Russell, for the informative summaries of the RAB meetings\nwhich he provides to the ARRA.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-11-04", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, November 4, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:03 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 7, , 2009.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Vice\nChair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of October 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese did not attend the Oct. 1 meeting, but received a comprehensive listing\n(Alameda Point Site/Area Description) of Alameda Point IR Sites by name, by number, historic\nuse, current contamination status and future reuse. He asked that this list be distributed to\nother boardmembers. The next RAB meeting is tomorrow, 11/5.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-11-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-12-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, December 2, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and\nChair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):\nProperty:\nAlameda Point\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and SunCal\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe ARRA Board provided instruction to the Real Property Negotiator.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:50\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItura Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 2, 2009", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, January 6, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 12:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 2, 2009.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member\nMatarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of December 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese discussed the highlights of the December 7 RAB meeting, including that he\nreceived a preliminary report from Derek Robinson of the Navy stating that the large object\nin\nthe Sea Plane Lagoon is a concrete block with pier material, not hazardous waste. Member\nMatarrese requested that the ARRA write a letter to the Navy to remove the concrete block.\nMember deHaan asked if radiation was found on that piece. Member Matarrese replied that it is\nunknown and a primary reason why it should be removed. Member Matarrese also discussed\nthat the Navy wants to leave the radium contaminated sewer line in place under building 400,\nstating that removing it would cause the structure to be unsound. Member Matarrese, along\nwith RAB members insist that the sewer line has to be removed. Another important point\ndiscussed was that the University of Florida and Purdue University received a large DOD grant\nto conduct remediation development studies; this grant represents several hundreds of\nthousands of dollars and put Alameda Point remediation on the map.\nChair Johnson agreed that the ARRA send a letter to the Navy regarding the two key items:\nconcrete block removal, and contaminated sewer line removal.\nVice Chair deHaan discussed looking at the option of filling the area in order to bring back the\nshoreline. Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese agreed, stating that if the Seaplane Lagoon is\neventually going to be a Marina, and boating activities will be taking place there, it needs to be\ncleared out.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n02-03-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese discussed the visit to El Toro and Hamilton bases, particularly that the City\nof Irvine established a local development corporation to develop the Great Park. Member\nMatarrese would like to put an item on a future ARRA agenda to evaluate that particular option\nto see if it has utility for the ARRA or successor to the ARRA. He stated that Hamilton is farther\nalong than most other bases - there are lots of houses; 10 hangars in use, eight of which have\nbeen rehabbed for public and private, with two hangars remaining in the Coast Guard. Member\nMatarrese recommends looking for potential military use for the hangars at Alameda Point. He\nstated that the most important and striking feature of Hamilton was that they were taking the\nrunways and returning them to wetlands. Member Matarrese discussed that a wetlands option\nfor the west end of Alameda Point might be a superior option to bolster the shoreline with an\nengineering solution. The wetlands are a carbon sink, and there may be future carbon credits; it\nfilters runoff, provide better habitat for the environment and is a superior buffer to storm or wave\naction because it doesn't require maintenance.\nVice Chair deHaan discussed that some of the dredging from the Port of Oakland was used for\nestablishing that wetlands. Member Matarrese added that levies were built as well. Vice Chair\ndeHaan stated that getting \"tipping fees' is extremely important to jumpstart this type of\noperation.\nChair Johnson liked the idea of wetland restoration. Member Matarrese reiterated that the\nARRA remain insistent that the Navy scoop and remove Sites 1 and 2.\nMember Matarrese stated that there was concern expressed by two members of the RAB (one\nrepresentative from the EPA and one from the Audubon Society) of rumors that the Bay Trail\nwas in jeopardy, either from the Wildlife or the VA. Member Matarrese would like to find the\nsource to the rumor to see if it has any merit.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-02-03", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, February 3, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:15 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 6, 2009.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member\ndeHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of January 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese discussed the highlights of the January 7 RAB meeting, including a report of\nSite OU-2C which has a contaminated discharge line under a slab in Bldg. 400. The RAB\nrecommends it be removed, but the Navy is citing potential compromise to the structural\nintegrity of building. The second highlight was a report on the block of cement in the seaplane\nlagoon, to which the Navy made no comment. Member Matarrese would like a presentation and\ntechnical summary from the Navy of cleanup activities and costs, including dollar figures,\ncompleted to date. Member Matarrese stated that it is good for the community to understand\nthat remediation is an ongoing process. He will attend the next RAB meeting tomorrow (2/4).\nMember Gilmore asked if it was requested of the Navy to substantiate their claim about the\nstructural integrity of Bldg. 400. Member Matarrese replied that a letter was sent to them with\nthat request.\nRichard Bangert, speaker, supported the suggestion made by Member Matarrese calling for a\npublic presentation of the clean up activities at the base. He agreed that such a presentation\nwould benefit the community at large. He discussed the Record of Decision (ROD) document\nfor Site 1, explaining that it comprises 43,000 pages of data, emphasizing the need for the\ncommunity to have a deep understanding of the clean-up efforts. Mr. Bangert also\nrecommended that the regulatory agencies who oversee the clean-up be featured in the\npresentation.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n03-03-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-02-03", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Johnson agreed with Mr. Bangert that the regulatory agencies, including the Department\nof Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the\nWater board should participate in the presentation.\nChair Johnson further stated that the Board supports Member Matarrese's recommendation for\na public presentation regarding the remediation activities at Alameda Point.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were several speakers. Jean Sweeney suggested a before and after\" powerpoint\npresentation of the clean-up sites.\nJim Sweeney agreed with Richard Bangert and Member Matarrese about a presentation to the\npublic. Mr. Sweeney encourages educating the public about remediation, the plan, and what\ncan be done realistically at Alameda Point.\nGretchen Lipow - attends RAB meetings, was impressed with the bright, talented members and\nhow they interact with the agencies. Ms. Lipow invites the public to observe these meetings,\nstating that the group looks out for the communities' welfare.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nVice Chair deHaan discussed the Special Election of Feb 2nd regarding Measure B. There were\n14,000 votes cast - 85% NO and 15% YES.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJune Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-03-03", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, March 3, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nAbsent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2010.\n2-B. Approve a Third Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems,\nInc., Increasing the Budget by $60,000 to Provide Ongoing Negotiation Support for\nthe Redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by\nMember Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of February 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese discussed the highlights of the February 4 RAB meeting, including a report\non remediation and field work: The Navy is continuing to dig up and remove radioactive\ncontaminated storm drain lines from Bldg. 5, there is active groundwater treatments at two sites\nalong the Oakland inner harbor, north of Pier 1; and a petroleum contaminated groundwater\ntreatment recovery operation near the Atlantic avenue entrance. There was discussion\nregarding issues relative to the disturbance of nesting of migratory birds at the Bay Trail, and\nthat meetings with the Fish & Wildlife Service have been scheduled. There are expanded site\ninspections along the south east portions of Alameda Point to Hangar Row, on the western side\nof the lagoon. Lastly, there was discussion on RAB's purpose and processes governing the\nRAB, and how well the RAB communicates to the general public about clean-up efforts. ARRA\nwill have a meeting on May 6 to promote and highlight clean-up work. Regulators from the\nEPA, DTSC, and Water Board will attend. The meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010 at the\nMastick Senior Center. The RAB will hold their regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the Special\nARRA meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n04-06-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-03-03", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNo speakers\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese said that he and Chair Johnson attended the Association of Defense\nCommunities (ADC) conference in Feb in Albuquerque, NM. He stated that they participated in\nvarious sessions and will prepare notes highlighting topics discussed in the sessions, including\nbase conversion stories and reuse of former military bases that were better, similar, or worse off\nthan Alameda Point. Regarding the base conversion and reuse, the spectrum ran from rural\nconversion of an army weapons depot in Kansas, to a small village in Illinois. Member\nMatarrese stated that there were a lot of contacts and exposure to all branches of service, their\nexperts and their experience, including the Director of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.\nAnn Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director, expressed that she was pleased with the ARRA's\ninvolvement in ADC and that she, along with executive staff, was invited to sit on the host\ncommittee to plan the Annual ADC Conference taking place in San Francisco this year. The\nanticipation is that there will be more than 1000 people in attendance. She stated that the ADC\naccepted the ARRA's invitation to host an event at Alameda Point. She also said that the ADC\nis interested in having the ARRA do a forum on the base and its history, including all the\ndifferent elements and components on remediation, phase-out issues, and that it would be a\ngood case study in terms of how they can learn some lessons.\nMember Matarrese discussed two key items: 1) legislation on defense authorization bill, which\nhelp communities grapple with the cost of closed bases, and 2) the new Undersecretary's\ninitiative to deal with green approaches, sustainability, and alternative energy sources.\nMember Gilmore asked what the dates for the ADC Annual Conference were. Ms. Gallant\nreplied that it was early August, the 8th thru 11th. Member Tam reminded the Board of the\nCharter provision to make a conscious effort to go dark in August.\nMember Tam also asked if there was information on the status of conveyance of Treasure\nIsland. Jennifer Ott, Deputy Executive Director, spoke with the Project Manager of the Treasure\nIsland Development Authority (TIDA) and explained that TIDA was able to hammer out a very\nbrief term sheet, very similar to Alameda; and that now they are working on details. Nothing\nofficial has been presented and no funds have exchanged hands. Because of the economy and\nprovisions of that agreement, additional density (more units) on Treasure Island will be worked\nthrough with developer as well.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Member Matarrese.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, April 6, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 3, 2010.\n2-B. Approve a Third Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems,\nInc., Increasing the Budget by $60,000 to Provide Ongoing Negotiation Support for\nthe Redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by\nMember Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of March 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese discussed the highlights of the February 4 RAB meeting, including a report\non remediation and field work: The Navy is continuing to dig up and remove radioactive\ncontaminated storm drain lines from Bldg. 5, there is active groundwater treatments at two sites\nalong the Oakland inner harbor, north of Pier 1; and a petroleum contaminated groundwater\ntreatment recovery operation near the Atlantic avenue entrance. There was discussion\nregarding issues relative to the disturbance of nesting of migratory birds at the Bay Trail, and\nthat meetings with the Fish & Wildlife Service have been scheduled. There are expanded site\ninspections along the south east portions of Alameda Point to Hangar Row, on the western side\nof the lagoon. Lastly, there was discussion on RAB's purpose and processes governing the\nRAB, and how well the RAB communicates to the general public about clean-up efforts. ARRA\nwill have a meeting on May 6 to promote and highlight clean-up work. Regulators from the\nEPA, DTSC, and Water Board will attend. The meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010 at the\nMastick Senior Center. The RAB will hold their regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the Special\nARRA meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n05-06-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-04-06", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNo speakers\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese said that he and Chair Johnson attended the Association of Defense\nCommunities (ADC) conference in Feb in Albuquerque, NM. He stated that they participated in\nvarious sessions and will prepare notes highlighting topics discussed in the sessions, including\nbase conversion stories and reuse of former military bases that were better, similar, or worse off\nthan Alameda Point. Regarding the base conversion and reuse, the spectrum ran from rural\nconversion of an army weapons depot in Kansas, to a small village in Illinois. Member\nMatarrese stated that there were a lot of contacts and exposure to all branches of service, their\nexperts and their experience, including the Director of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.\nAnn Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director, expressed that she was pleased with the ARRA's\ninvolvement in ADC and that she, along with executive staff, was invited to sit on the host\ncommittee to plan the Annual ADC Conference taking place in San Francisco this year. The\nanticipation is that there will be more than 1000 people in attendance. She stated that the ADC\naccepted the ARRA's invitation to host an event at Alameda Point. She also said that the ADC\nis interested in having the ARRA do a forum on the base and its history, including all the\ndifferent elements and components on remediation, phase-out issues, and that it would be a\ngood case study in terms of how they can learn some lessons.\nMember Matarrese discussed two key items: 1) legislation on defense authorization bill, which\nhelp communities grapple with the cost of closed bases, and 2) the new Undersecretary's\ninitiative to deal with green approaches, sustainability, and alternative energy sources.\nMember Gilmore asked what the dates for the ADC Annual Conference were. Ms. Gallant\nreplied that it was early August, the 8th thru 11th. Member Tam reminded the Board of the\nCharter provision to make a conscious effort to go dark in August.\nMember Tam also asked if there was information on the status of conveyance of Treasure\nIsland. Jennifer Ott, Deputy Executive Director, spoke with the Project Manager of the Treasure\nIsland Development Authority (TIDA) and explained that TIDA was able to hammer out a very\nbrief term sheet, very similar to Alameda; and that now they are working on details. Nothing\nofficial has been presented and no funds have exchanged hands. Because of the economy and\nprovisions of that agreement, additional density (more units) on Treasure Island will be worked\nthrough with developer as well.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Member Matarrese.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-05-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nThursday, May 6, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Vice Chair deHaan presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\nAbsent:\nChair Beverly Johnson (arrived at 8:40 p.m.)\n2.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n2-A. Alameda Point Environmental Update - Presentation by the Navy and Regulatory\nAgencies.\nVice Chair deHaan introduced Jennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager, to open the presentation. Ms.\nOtt gave an overview on what will be presented: a summary of the environmental program, the\naccomplishments that have been made to date, funds that have been expended by the Navy to\ndate, as well as some of the economic development impacts of the process. The presenters\nwere Derek Robinson of the Navy, Anna-Marie Cook of the Environmental Protection Agency\n(EPA), and Dot Lofstrom of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).\nAfter the presentation, the Board discussed key issues with the presenters.\nVice Chair deHaan commented on the long process and gave a brief background on the\nremediation efforts. He thanked the community and past chairs for their continued support.\nMember Tam expressed her appreciation for the update and the amount of work & effort that\ngoes into the clean up. She asked how the funds are controlled and administered, who they\nflow through given the various jurisdictions involved (i.e., is the funding centralized through the\nBRAC and then through the other agencies) and how they are allocated through congressional\nauthorizations.\nDerek Robinson explained that he will get clarification on the funding process and will report the\ninformation back to Member Tam. He also clarified that the Navy's focus is not on recouping\nthe funds spent in the clean-up. Vice Chair deHaan discussed the change of philosophy\nregarding the remediation of Alameda Point. He clarified that the clean-up was under the\ncomplete control of the Navy, and that in 2000, the Navy allowed the developer to consider\nprivatized clean-up, and then it went back under the control of the Navy.\nMember Matarrese asked for more clarification about the process after a parcel is determined to\nbe cleaned to the level at which it was assigned - how notification, information and\ndocumentation is given to the next successor agency in order for them to continue the work. Dot\nLofstrom explained that there is an official administrative record that the Navy maintains and\ninformation & documentation will always be in the Information Repository. In addition, there is\nan informal repository that DTSC is maintaining through their Envirostore Database. There is a\nAgenda Item #2-A\nCC/ARRA/CIC\n06-01-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-05-06", "page": 2, "text": "certification process after a parcel has been cleaned. Ann Marie Cook of EPA further explained\nthis process: Once a site has reached a point where it is considered meeting the goals set for it\nto be cleaned, the Navy prepares a \"Remedial Action Completion Report' and the EPA, because\nit is a Superfund site, is required to make the determination that all clean-up action necessary\nhas been completed. The Navy then drafts a Finding of Suitability report to transfer that\nproperty.\nMember Gilmore asked for the status of the transfer process of cleaned VA lands and whether\nor not the Navy and the VA have reached a basic deal. Jennifer Ott explained that the transfer\nis moving forward, but awaiting approval from the administration to move forward. She stated\nthat at this time, there are no details of a basic deal, but she will keep the Board updated on any\nfurther developments.\nVice Chair deHaan asked about the status of remediation of the Seaplane Lagoon. Mr.\nRobinson stated that they are currently in Stage 1, which includes removing large debris piles\non the north side, and that Stage 2 will include remediating soils from the outlet of the storm\ndrain systems. Construction activities will start in Sep./Oct. 2010. Vice Chair deHaan also\nasked about Site 2 wetlands. He was concerned that the estimated cost of clean-up for Site 2\nwas approximately $100 million. Mr. Robinson stated that number seems high, and is more\nlikely $20 million - but will get the correct information to report back to the Board.\nThere were three speakers: Jim Sweeney discussed the potential adaptive reuse of Building 5.\nAccording to Ann Marie Cook, Building 5 is one million square feet, is 65 feet tall, and qualifies\nas a historical building. She managed to secure funding from an EPA pilot program and they\nare looking at costs associated with reusing portions of the building and demolishing other\nportions. She will be able to provide an update in three months, with a final report in about\nseven months.\nIrene Dieter, speaking on behalf of community, expressed her concern about lack of information\nand public relations to the community about all the remediation efforts and other activities\nregarding Alameda Point. Ms. Ott reiterated that there are monthly RAB and ARRA meetings,\nas well as notices on the City and Alameda Point websites.\nThe third speaker, Maria Hargrove, expressed concern about traffic and congestion in and out\nof Alameda Point. Chair Johnson informed Ms. Hargrove that the Planning Board meeting on\nMonday, May 10, will discuss traffic issues and present a plan.\nChair Johnson thanked all the presenters for coming together to coordinate this Special\nMeeting, and for the important information they provided in their presentation. She reiterated to\nthe public how important the information provided by these agencies is in helping the community\nunderstand all the activity and efforts in cleaning up Alameda Point.\n3.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJana Glidden\nTrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, July 7, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:21 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Responses to Questions Posed by the ARRA Board at the May 6th, 2010 Special ARRA\nMeeting Regarding the United States Navy's Environmental Program at Alameda Point.\nMember Gilmore requested additional information regarding the VA transfer and related\nagreement in response to the May 25, 2010 letter from the Navy which addressed the questions\nfrom the May 6th meeting. Staff stated that the information will be provided at the next ARRA\nmeeting.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member\nMatarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of June 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese gave an overview of the June 3rd RAB meeting. He discussed the summary\nof the radiological surveys and clean ups that have been done at Fed sites 1 and 2. He also\ndiscussed the Bldg. 5 storm drain which was removed because of radium contamination, and\nthat additional contamination was found in other storm drains; and site 17 sediment sampling of\nthe seaplane lagoon. Member Matarrese stated that there is a new schedule of evaluation and\nremediation that runs from Aug thru Nov of 2010.\nMember Matarrese discussed two commentary papers prepared by RAB member and physical\nengineer, George Humphreys. One of the papers was on basewide radiological contamination,\nand the other on site 25 ground water plume above the FISC near Coast Guard Housing,\nTinker-Stargell extension.\nThere is a Navy-sponsored tour of the sites on Saturday, July 17 from 9-11:00 a.m. Interested\nparties can go to the BRAC website to sign up.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n09-01-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nOne speaker, Jon Spangler, discussed clean-up of Alameda Point. He inquired what will happen\nwith everything that is above-ground at Alameda Point, the crumbling infrastructure, buildings\nthat were built with toxic materials, and contaminated buildings. He asked who will pay for\nremediation and up-keep if SunCal's contract is not renewed.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nConsidering the investigatory report against Councilmember Tam, Vice-Chair deHaan offered to\nattend the League of California Cities meeting as the alternate representative for the City of\nAlameda. He asked if this issue should be agendized for the next regular Council meeting.\nThe General Counsel clarified that because Vice Chair deHaan is already the alternate, no\nofficial action is required, but if the Board would like to take a vote, this cannot happen tonight\nand would have to be at another meeting. Member Matarrese concurred with Vice-Chair\ndeHaan and requested this issue be agendized for the next council meeting.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-09-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, September 1, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:03 p.m. with Vice Chair deHaan presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\nAbsent:\nChair Beverly Johnson (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 2010.\n2-B. Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 001 Amending the Order of Business of the\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting.\n2-C. Approve a Fourth Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.,\nIncreasing the Budget by $25,000 for Providing Negotiation Support for the\nRedevelopment of Alameda Point.\nMember Tam asked to pull Item 2-C, and moved to approve the balance of the Consent\nCalendar. Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by following voice vote\n- Ayes: 4.\nMember Tam requested more clarification on the amount of the EPS contract amendment and\nasked if SunCal was consulted on the overage, to which the Deputy City Manager,\nDevelopment Services, responded in the affirmative, explaining that the Negotiating Cost\nLedger has been made available to SunCal, and all invoices are included in the ledger.\nMember Tam asked what the ENA obligations are if the budget or scope is exceeded for\nconsultant contracts. The Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded that\ncontracts are separate from the SunCal Cost Recovery account, and the amount of the EPS\ncontract has not exceeded any Cost Recovery provisions under the ENA.\nMember Tam asked what the total budget was for EPS under the Cost Recovery Account, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded that the total budget for the\nquarter was approximately $372,000 for all consultants. Based on this clarification, Member\nTam stated she will abstain from this item.\nMember Gilmore asked if there are sufficient funds in the Cost Recovery account to cover the\noverage of the EPS contract amendment, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development\nServices, responded in the affirmative.\nMember Gilmore asked if there is a mechanism in place if charges are disputed, to which the\nDeputy City Manager, Development Services, responded in the affirmative.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-09-01", "page": 2, "text": "Member Matarrese moved for approval of Item 2-C. Vice Chair deHaan seconded the\nmotion, which carried by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1\n(Tam)\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Adopt a Resolution Supporting the United States Navy's Transfer of 549 Acres of the\nFormer Naval Air Station in the City of Alameda to the United States Department of\nVeterans Affairs for the Development of an Out-Patient Clinic and Columbarium.\nThe Deputy City Manager, Development Services clarified that the staff report combines an\ninformation piece which addresses the VA-NAVY deal, and requires no action; and a\n'recommendation' portion to adopt a resolution in support of property transfer to the VA.\nThe Deputy City Manager, Development Services summarized the background of the proposed\nVA project and property transfer.\nMember Tam inquired if it was necessary that the resolution exclude the 9.7 acres of the Least\nTern colony, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services explained that the 9.7\nacres is included, along with the buffer zone surrounding the Wildlife Refuge, which is more\nthan half of the 549 acres.\nThe Deputy City Manager, Development Services introduced Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset\nManager from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Mr. Jaynes gave a brief presentation of the\nstatus and projected timeline of the VA project.\nSpeakers: Proponents: Mark Chandler, Commissioner of the Alameda County Veterans Affairs\nCommission; Alex McElree, Operation Dignity; Aidan Barry.\nOpponents: Gary Bard; Leora Feeney, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge (FAWR)\nCommittee; Ron Barklow; Cindy Margulis; Michael Lynes, Golden Gate Audubon; Jean\nSweeney; Jon Spangler; Jim Sweeney; Adam Gillitt; William Smith, Sierra Club; Joyce Larrick,\nFAWR; Nancy Hird\nChair Johnson inquired if there is a specific location identified in the resolution for the VA\nproject, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in the negative,\nfurther explaining that the 549 acres are part of a formal request that includes the specific\nproperty.\nVice Chair deHaan clarified that there was discussion by the Board that the old Phase 3, the\narea near the USS Hornet, is a feasible location for the VA project, but there are still options to\nbe pursued.\nMember Tam inquired whether this Fed to Fed transfer from the Navy to the VA is going to\nhappen irrespective of whether or not the Board endorse it or oppose it, to which the Deputy\nCity Manager, Development Services responded that there is a process that has to be followed\nin order for the Fed-to-Fed transfer to occur, which includes NEPA and a Section 7\nConsultation. At this time, there are no guarantees that the process will be completed, but the\nassumption is that once the process is complete, the transfer will occur.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-09-01", "page": 3, "text": "Member Tam brought attention to the alternative resolution from the Golden Gate Audubon\nSociety which includes recognition that there should be protection for the Least Terns, based on\na biological opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife.\nMember Gilmore inquired why the VA was requesting 549 acres when they only require\napproximately 100 acres for their project, to which Mr. Jaynes replied that the Navy stated the\ntransfer would be the 549 acres or nothing. Mr. Jaynes further explained that it is not part of the\nVA's mission to manage that portion of property, so the VA is planning to have a separate\nagreement with the USF&W to oversee the remaining 449 acres, just as the Navy has the same\nagreement with them right now; the funding will come from the VA instead of the Navy.\nMember Matarrese inquired if the property was transferred to the ARRA, could the ARRA then\ndispose of it to the VA, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in\nthe affirmative. Mr. Jaynes expressed that there may be stumbling blocks without proceeding\nwith the BRAC process.\nMember Matarrese inquired whether the city will be able to participate in the VA project process,\nto which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in the affirmative.\nMember Gilmore requested more details from the VA regarding what their plans are with USFW,\nand the proposed annual budget, so that it does not become an afterthought.\nMember Tam suggested adding the language from the Golden Gate Audubon Society regarding\nthe protection of the Least Tern colony to the ARRA Resolution.\nVice Chair deHaan moved for approval of Item 3-A, with a revision to the Resolution\nadding \"Whereas, the City of Alameda will continue to prioritize the protection and\nconservation of the California Least Tern in its planning documents and decisions\".\nMember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote: 5\nAyes.\n3-B. Presentation: Alameda Point - 'Going Forward'.\nThe Interim City Manager announced that Item 3-C will be combined with 3-B into a single\npresentation. The presentation focused on a planning and assessment model for a going-\nforward approach for the development of Alameda Point. The Interim City Manager\nemphasized that this model is not a development plan, not a land use plan, or anything that\nrequires actual legislative decision, it is a recommendation and topic for discussion. The\npresentation included seven key components of this approach: lessons learned, new structure,\nstrategic alliances, development delivery systems, asset management police application,\nfinancial resources, and implementation schedule.\nVice Chair deHaan inquired who will comprise the team for this model approach, to which the\nInterim City Manager responded that familiar staff members, including the Deputy City Manager,\nDevelopment Services; the Planning Services Manager, Public Works Director; and various\nconsultants, will comprise the team.\nSpeakers: Adam Gillitt, Tony Daysog, Jean Sweeney, Jon Spangler, Alex McElree, Richard\nBangert, Nancy Hird, Doug Biggs, Gretchen Lipow.\nVice Chair deHaan remarked that the timeline for this plan is very aggressive, and suggested\ncompressing the timeline. The Interim City Manager clarified that the ambitious timeline doesn't", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-09-01", "page": 4, "text": "mean the base is going to be completed in 15 months, rather, the 15 months timeline is for\nplanning an assessment. The Board will have an opportunity to augment the timeline in more\ndetail after subsequent discussions and at subsequent meetings.\nMember Matarrese stated that on strategic alliances, the regulators should be recognized, the\nEPA & DTSC for clean-up, and USF&W for the environmental. Regarding policy questions,\nMember Matarrese also expects certain questions to resurface, i.e., finances and how tax\nincrement might be used, where the shortfalls are, how they will be backfilled, and where there\nare opportunities for early transfer for land that has already been cleaned up. Member\nMatarrese also suggested looking at the potential for having a citywide Project Labor Agreement\n(PLA) . There also needs to be discussion about jobs-housing balance, to give an opportunity\nfor public to weigh in on it. Member Matarrese remarked on the notion of using \"other peoples\nmoney\", i.e., funds from the Federal Government and MTC, as these funds could add up.\nMember Gilmore echoed Member Matarrese's comments and requested to see a primer of what\nthe lease environment looks like in the Bay Area, regarding the asset management application.\nIf the ARRA is renegotiating leases, it would be good to know realistically what the competition\nis, in order to have a more realistic expectation in terms of putting in more capital into a building\nor not.\nIn terms of leasing strategy, Member Tam inquired whether or not there is opportunity to adjust\nthe restriction in the LIFOC which says the Navy can give minimal notice to terminate a tenant,\nrecommending that it is something that should be pursued.\nThere was discussion about the amount of documents that have been produced and compiled\nthrough the years, and where they are made available to the public on the City and Alameda\nPoint websites. The Interim City Manager stated that staff is working on implementing a new\nAlameda Point website which will focus strictly on Alameda Point and the development project\ngoing forward.\n3-C. Presentation: Citywide Asset Management Strategy - Alameda Point Application.\n(This item was combined with 3-B)\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative\n- Highlights of August 5 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese stated that there were a number of interesting documents that were\npresented at the August RAB meeting, including a report on IR Site 35, which is action sites that\nare in the very center of the property being transferred to the ARRA; a presentation on\ngroundwater remediation at OU-2A, which discussed clean up; and communications from the\nRAB to the Navy. Member Matarrese remarked that the most interesting handout was an\nabstract done in concert with the Navy, EPA, Shaw Group (the contractor) and federal money\nfrom a SERDP grant through the University of Florida, Gainesville. The abstract depicts the\nresults of a method of clean up of TCE (trichloroethene), Plume 4-1. Member Matarrese stated\nthat this should be of interest to Alameda because it is being published in a scientific journal, it\nbrings focus on what is going on at Alameda Point, and creates notoriety on methods that could\nbe used at other bases. Handouts were provided to the Clerk for copies to be made and\ndistributed.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-09-01", "page": 5, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAiran Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, October 6, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 1, 2010.\n2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Jim Bustos Plumbing, Inc., Building\n612, at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with Russell\nResources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term\nfor 12 Months and Adding $140,000 to the Budget.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for NRC Environmental Services, Inc.\nBuilding 616 and Yard D-13, at Alameda Point.\nVice Chair deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded\nthe motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of September 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese was not able to attend the Sept. 2 meeting but received materials regarding\nremediation activity in progress with a new technology, and a brief report on the University of\nFlorida study of the remediation technique.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A. Presentation on \"Going Forward\" Community Forums for Alameda Point", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 2, "text": "The Planning Services Manager gave an oral presentation on the schedule of the Alameda\nPoint Community Forums, an initial eight month public outreach effort of the first phase of\nplanning, which would end in June 2011 and restart the environmental review process. The\nPlanning Services Manager explained that while the City of Alameda is doing a CEQA\ndocument EIR, the Navy will be doing a NEPA document. The Navy process won't start until\nthere is a project description or general description of the City's plan. The goal is eight months.\nThe eight-month schedule starts with a series of community outreach efforts, including\ncommunity workshops and internet outreach. The tentative schedule of the first three meetings\nis: November 9 at the Grand Pavilion, November 18 at Mastick, and December 8 in west\nAlameda. These workshops and key components of each meeting will be consistent from\nmeeting to meeting.\nThe Planning Services Manager summarized the six key areas as noted in the staff report: 1)\nCommunity Facilities, 2) Land Use Mix, 3) Streets, Parks, and Open Space, 4) Transportation\nAccess, 5) Architectural Character and Building Types, and 6) Historic Character and Adaptive\nReuse.\nThere are plans for a Tenant Forum in the spring focused on economic development strategy, a\nDeveloper and Business Forum, and discussions with each of the Boards and Commissions. A\nsummary will be presented to the ARRA Board in March 2011, and a project description in June\n2011.\nMember Gilmore requested an overview of where Alameda and the Bay Area stand in the\ncommercial and industrial real estate market. The Interim City Manager discussed the\napplication of a citywide real estate management policy which will include the information\nMember Gilmore requested about comparable leases.\nMember Tam requested an evaluation of internal competition, i.e., Marina Village VS. Alameda\nPoint.\nMember Matarrese discussed the commercialization and industrialization approach to\ndevelopment at Alameda Point, stating that the markets already out there are not the typical\nsuburban business park, not the type of businesses that would go into Marina Village, i.e., NRC\nand supporting industries, Spirits Alley, the maritime industry. Member Matarrese also\ndiscussed the jobs housing, and that job creation should drive it, stating that Alameda Point will\nnever be the rest of Alameda and probably shouldn't be, because it is industrial. Alameda Point\nshould reflect what it was and people will look at it in a different way.\nVice Chair deHaan concurred with Member Matarrese, stating that Alameda Point has a\ndifferent architectural design and that the development should maximize the unique venue out\nthere, and that folks should not get caught up in that it has to look like the rest of Alameda.\nMember Gilmore recommended evaluating and targeting the types of businesses and industries\nthat would value the asset of Alameda's own electric utility.\nMember Tam inquired a status report on communications with the Navy and if they were aware\nof the \"Going Forward\" plan, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services\nresponded in the affirmative, stating that staff met with the Navy last week. The Navy produced\nconveyance objectives and stated that they want to help facilitate conveyance and interim\neconomic development. The Interim City Manager stated that she will meet with the Navy's top\nmanagement every 90 days for a status update.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 3, "text": "Member Tam inquired if there was opportunity for Alameda to get funding for the EIR process.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that\nstaff has discussed funding possibilities with the Navy. There are some technical issues as the\nNavy has a contract for their NEPA process, and the City has a CEQA contract, but it may be\npossible to combine the processes so that it is cost efficient.\nMember Tam inquired if there are synergies between the sister federal agencies (Lawrence\nBerkeley Lab is with the Dept. of Energy, and the Veterans Administration has close ties with\nNavy). The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that, regarding the VA, the\nNavy understands that there has to be coordination to the extent that City staff can work with\nthe VA to leverage their infrastructure and develop that relationship, not just in terms of\nregulatory process, but also with actual physical improvements and infrastructure. With regards\nto the Lawrence Berkeley Lab's requests for proposals for land to host their second campus, the\nCity is prepared to submit a proposal in coordination with the Navy.\nThe Interim City Manager added that the City is prepared to respond to the Lawrence Berkeley\nLab RFP process with a very competitive proposal. There are opportunities to have strategic\nalliances as a result of the DOE and the Navy that makes Alameda Point uniquely competitive.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff will be providing the Board\nwith updates at the monthly ARRA meetings.\nVice Chair deHaan inquired if the Navy is willing to do phased conveyance. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services explained that the Navy is exploring the boundaries, the pros\nand cons of phased conveyance, and that the Navy is open and listening to ideas.\nThere was discussion from the Board about the management of the utilities at Alameda Point\nand whether there was a formal decision made about it. The Assistant General Counsel -\nARRA stated that there has never been a plan that the City would operate any of the utilities at\nAlameda Point other than the electric utility.\nMember Matarrese requested that the facts of this matter be brought back to the Board.\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese attended the liaison committee meeting between AC Transit and the City\nand discussed the series of cuts, including reduction of services for Lines O, Line 51A, and Line\n21, and the discontinuation of Line 851. He was most concerned about Line 31 (the only bus\nservice to the Alameda Point Collaborative and to west of Main St) which will be discontinued on\nweekends. Member Matarrese requested that the City insist that Line 31 be continued on\nweekends.\nThere was discussion by the Board of SunCal's involvement in the political arena.\nBoardmembers expressed their dissatisfaction and displeasure, denouncing SunCal's efforts,\nstating that the personal attacks on staff members and elected officials to influence any political\ndebate or election should not be tolerated.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-10-06", "page": 4, "text": "9. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItema Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, November 3, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 2010.\nMember Matarrese moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair deHaan\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Consider Request from Alameda Point Collaborative to Support their Community\nPlanning Efforts by Reimbursing Unpaid SunCal Consultant Expenses and\nCollateralizing a $50,000 Loan for Relocation Planning Studies Should Funds from\nPrivate Development Be Unavailable within 36 Months.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided an overview of the staff report.\nChair Johnson inquired if the expenditure is considered a predevelopment cost for SunCal, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager - Development Services answered in the affirmative. Chair\nJohnson inquired if staff has made efforts to have SunCal fulfill their commitment for payment.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the Alameda Point\nCollaborative (APC) has tried diligently, without success, to have SunCal fulfill its commitment.\nChair Johnson recommended continued efforts to pursue SunCal and inquired why funds from\nthe SunCal escrow account are not being used to pay this bill. The Executive Director\nexplained that the predevelopment escrow account is for obligations that SunCal has to the City\nand that the terms of the escrow account do not allow the City to direct the escrow agent to pay\nany invoices. Also, the City cannot interfere in the contractual relationship between SunCal and\nAPC.\nDoug Biggs, Executive Director of APC further explained that he has contacted SunCal multiple\ntimes to request payment, and the responses provided no resolution to the problem and\npayments have not been made. Chair Johnson asked Mr. Biggs if APC has filed a lawsuit\nagainst SunCal to collect the funds owed. Mr. Biggs explained that the contract SunCal\nrequired APC sign has a no-lawsuit clause and that APC would have to go through mediation.\nChair Johnson inquired whether APC has demanded mediation pursuant to its contract, to\nwhich Mr. Biggs responded in the negative. Chair Johnson recommended that APC go through\nthe binding arbitration process.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 2, "text": "Member Matarrese commented that SunCal had no problem spending approximately $50,000\non an election mailer a month ago. Member Matarrese supports APC's request, but would like\nto require that APC start the proceedings on their contractual remedy to the outstanding bill.\nMember Gilmore requested an update and report on the status of the predevelopment costs,\nand of the ARRA budget. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Member\nGilmore and the Board that staff will incorporate the ARRA budget and Predevelopment costs\ninformation into the update/staff report that will be presented to the Board in January.\nVice Chair deHaan inquired how the APC will pay back a $50,000 loan. Mr. Biggs explained\nthat the Project Implementation Loan (PIL) is from the Corporation for Supportive Housing.\nTraditionally, these loans are paid off by development fees, but since the development plans for\nAlameda Point are uncertain at this time, APC is asking the City to back them up.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the predevelopment planning\ncost will be wrapped into the total cost of the project and financed through every available\nfunding source to make the consolidation and relocation work.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler spoke in support of APC's request.\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the recommendation to collateralize $50,000 for\nthe pursuit of the planning study, with the requirement that the APC formally invoke their\nremedy in their contract in pursuit of reimbursement by SunCal. Member Matarrese also\nrequested that the work done by the contractor be under public domain so that it is not\nproprietary to APC since it is being underwritten by the ARRA. Vice Chair deHaan\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of October 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese did not attend the October 7th meeting but will attend the RAB meeting on\nNov. 4. Member Matarrese provided comments on Dr. Russell's highlights, stating that most of\nthe activities described are actual remediation activities. He called particular attention to the\nrecord of decision on Site 2 which is the southwest portion of the base. There was discussion of\na cap and cover for that contamination. Member Matarrese would like Dr. Russell to\nrecommend a strategy to make sure anything that is radioactive is removed from Site 2.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A. Presentation on Request for Qualifications for a Resource Team for Redevelopment\nof Alameda Point.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief summary on steps staff is\ntaking to move the going forward process. In the next week or two, staff will send out a Request\nfor Qualifications (RFQ) for land use planning, urban design, sustainable green design and\ninfrastructure planning, civil engineering, transportation planning, fiscal impact land use", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 3, "text": "ARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-12-01", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, December 1, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:01 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 3, 2010.\n2-B. Approve a Waiver of License Fees for American Red Cross, Bay Area Chapter at Building\n8.\nMember Gilmore moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded\nthe motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Designate a Member of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board to\nServe as the New Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Representative.\nVice Chair deHaan offered to serve as the RAB representative.\nMember Gilmore moved for approval to appoint Vice Chair deHaan as the new RAB\nrepresentative. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. Effective first RAB meeting in January 2011.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of November 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese addressed three key points: 1) The Navy will be revamping the records\nRepository, including all of the Records of Decision (ROD), environmental studies,\npresentations, and information on the history of characterization; 2) there was a presentation on\nthe draft final site investigation of the Federal Parcel Transfer, the south west portion of the\nbase. The Navy is completing the surveying; 3) Member Matarrese would like Member deHaan\nand staff to continue tracking Sites 1, 2, & 32 on the north west side. These sites are the most\nvulnerable parts of the base in that they have high ground water, are susceptible to sloughing\noff into the bay, and are replete with radium T26 contamination. Member Matarrese stated it is\nimportant the City take a position that the Navy should not leave any detectable radiation on the\nsite.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-12-01", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A. Alameda Point Community Forums Update.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a presentation and an overview of the\ncommunity forums. She provided a link to the workbook that people can participate in the going-\nforward process: ww.alamedapoint-goingforward.com\nSpeakers: Philip Tribuzio, Henry Hernandez\n6-B. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board Composition: Options for New\nStructure (continued from November 16, 2010).\nThe Interim City Manager provided a presentation to update the Board on the 'Going-Forward\"\nplan.\nSpeakers: Honora Murphy, John Knox White, Anne Spanier, John Spangler\nThere was confusion among the public regarding the topic of Item 6-B. Member Tam explained\nthat the confusion comes from the wording of the item. The item is an update of the Going-\nForward plan, and not a recommendation to change the ARRA Board Structure. Chair Johnson\nfurther clarified that this item is not before the Board for a decision, and that the Interim City\nManager presented the item as an introduction of the concept, which the Board could either\npursue or abandon.\nMember Gilmore expressed concern that there were advisory groups for Alameda Point that\nwere active for many years [Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG), Alameda Point Advisory\nCommission (APAC)], but that they were ultimately dissolved by the ARRA. Member Gilmore's\nconcern was that expanding the ARRA Board meant putting important decisions in the hands of\nnon-electeds.\nVice Chair deHaan expressed concern that he didn't want his elected position to be undermined\nby introducing a new structure or re-establishing an advisory group. It would be counter-\nproductive to the long-standing mechanisms currently in place.\nMember Tam premised her statement by requesting that her comments be taken in the context\nthat she is giving her opinion, and not trying to develop consensus for direction. Member Tam\ncommented that the ARRA's amended bylaws and JPA included provisions to appoint an\nadvisory body, not a voting body. Member Tam suggested an approach that included the parks\nand school districts (EBRPD and AUSD), the Peralta community; as they all have their own\ngoverning boards. The representatives from each of these agencies would have accountability\nand would foster democracy. Member Tam stated an expansion of the ARRA Board is\nsomething that should not be pursued.\nMember Gilmore and Vice Chair deHaan agreed with Member Tam and support the idea of\nincluding other stakeholders.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-12-01", "page": 3, "text": "The Interim City Manager suggested adding an element to the process -- a community forum for\nprinciple stakeholders and other governmental agencies/bodies focused on government\nregulations.\nMember Tam requested that this issue be included as a future item where the Board can give\ndirection. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that it will be placed on the\nFebruary agenda.\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Gilmore reminded staff that she requested a presentation regarding the commercial\nreal estate market as it exists.\nVice Chair deHaan stated that the ARRA should be involved in the City of Oakland's\ndiscussions regarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Oakland A's stadium in Jack\nLondon Square. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Vice Chair\ndeHaan that Alameda city planning staff is aware of the NOP and will be following it.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-01-05", "page": 1, "text": "1\nUNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, January 5, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:02 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Marie Gilmore\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Beverly Johnson\nVice Chair Rob Bonta\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-001) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 2010.\n(*11-002) Approve a Waiver of License Fee for Michaan's Auctions for Use of Portions of\nBuilding 20.\nMember deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-A of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam\nseconded the motion, which carried by voice vote - 4, Abstentions - 1 (Bonta).\nMember deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-B of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or\nadopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-003) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of December 2, 2010 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember deHaan did not attend the December 2, 2010 RAB meeting and has no report.\nMember deHaan will attend the next RAB meeting on January 6, 2011 and will provide a report\nat the February ARRA meeting. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services will also\nattend the January 6th RAB meeting.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-004) Mayor Gilmore asked the Deputy City Manager - Development Services to provide an\nupdate on the Lawrence Berkeley Lab (LBL) RFQ for a 2M square foot campus, with Alameda\nPoint in consideration. The RFQ was sent out on January 3 and is due March 4th. Staff and\na", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-01-05", "page": 2, "text": "2\nconsultant team are working together to respond to the RFQ. Placeholders have been put on all\nCouncil/ARRA agendas before the March due date in case policy direction is needed. The\nDeputy City Manager - Development Services summarized the RFQ, stating that the initial\nphase is for 500,000 sq. ft. of space. Staff is working closely with the Navy (property owners)\non policy issues that may need to be discussed with the Board. The short list will be in April.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services will discuss the developer solicitation\nprocess on the 18th in response to the RFQ, and before the short list. Other bases have been\njump-started by large institutional user like LBL, it is a great catalyst and opportunity to get\nAlameda Point started.\nMember Johnson asked about the location and competitors. The Deputy City Manager\n-\nDevelopment Services responded that the location was very specific: 20 - 25 minutes from\nblackberry gate; and that the biggest competitor is LBL's own property at Richmond Gild\nStation, 90 acres along the waterfront. The cities of Berkeley and Emeryville are also included.\nMember deHaan inquired if LBL is looking for land site or adaptive reuse. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services explained that since LBL needs state of the art R&D facilities,\nthey want to find new construction. In initial conversations, the area that stands out is the area\nsouth of Atlantic. Construction would start in July 2013 in areas without cleanup issues. Chair\nGilmore requested the RFQ be posted on the City's website so that the Board can access it and\nbe prepared to get questions answered.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the Golden Gate Yacht Club and\nOracle Racing announced that the America's Cup #34 will be held in San Francisco in 2013. In\nanticipation of the event, staff sent event organizers a letter reemphasizing the city's support for\nthe San Francisco bid, and where Alameda can be helpful, i.e., host supportive services on\nAlameda Point for the America's Cup - hangars, ferries, potential economic benefit, strong\nmarine industry, sailing syndicates, and being involved in the planning process.\nMember deHaan asked if the Board is taking the lead with regard to the community support\nefforts, or if there is a separate professional organization taking the lead. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services replied that it has been a cooperative effort - specific\ncommunity members are involved in the maritime and sailing world and have the connections\nthat staff doesn't. There are shared ideas and support. The City and staff lends credibility as a\ngovernment entity to their interests.\nThe Acting City Manager discussed the website which was developed by a community member\nwho is connected to the sailing world and is leading the charge, working with the City for bigger\nmobilization in support of America's Cup #34. The business community wants to get involved,\nand a partnership of residents, business and the city could help bring some aspect of the event\nto Alameda.\nMember Bonta commented on the amazing efforts from the community, recognizing Jack\nBoeger and Bob Naber. Member Bonta stated that he looks forward to working with staff and\nthe community to maximize this opportunity and realize the full potential economically and\notherwise.\nMember Tam requested to be informed of any opportunities for the elected body to get involved.\nChair Gilmore requested that updates of the event be placed as a regular item on the ARRA\nagenda.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-01-05", "page": 3, "text": "3\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\n(11-005) Referral from Chair Gilmore to change the order of the ARRA meetings.\nMember Johnson moved to approve the referral to change the order of the ARRA\nmeetings. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\n(11-006) Member Tam commented that with the emerging opportunities, the ARRA should focus\non reshaping its Going Forward process and be more \"shovel ready\"- more prepared with\nproperty, parcels, and infrastructure to maximize its competitiveness at Alameda Point.\nChair Gilmore requested a timeline of the Going Forward process so that the Board and the\npublic can makes comments and any changes necessary. The Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services stated that an update will be presented at the 2/2 ARRA meeting, and\nthe ARRA predevelopment budget would be presented at the 2/15 mid year budget adjustment.\nMember deHaan asked if staff has interfaced with the new owners of Catellus, TPG Capital LP.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that the Economic Development\nDirector and City Manager were getting up to speed with the new partner. A designated project\nmanager is working with staff. TPG Capital will likely need to come to the Council/CIC because\nthey are changing the development entity in agreement with the CIC. The Deputy City Manager\n- Development Services discussed that there will be a staff report, update, and presentation\nfrom the new partner in the next couple of months.\nMember deHaan inquired about the interview timeline for the Alameda Point RFQ consultants.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that there were two days of\ninterviews with four consultants: real estate economics, master planning, sustainable design\nand green infrastructure consultants, and transportation consultants. Contracts will be\nnegotiated in January and will be brought back as part of the mid year budget adjustment to\ndemonstrate to the ARRA how the project will be paid for. There are also plans to come back\nwith community feedback in March.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-02-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, February 2, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.\n(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-013) Endorse \"Going Forward\" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going\nForward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public\nWorks Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and\nproject description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's\nenvironmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of\nconveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major\nentitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands\nExchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The\nworkbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a\nsummary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled\nnext week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The\nfirst and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and\na team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,\nenvironmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM\nRealty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for\nlonger term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State\nLands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There\nwill be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from\nthe Navy.\nMember Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of\nan RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property\nmanagement agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property\nmanager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done\nyet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-02-02", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and\nwould like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope\nfor an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as\nthere is an economist on board.\nThe project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,\non their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative\n(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their\nlonger term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be\nimplementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and\nroutes at Alameda Point.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be\ndiscussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.\nThe Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.\nMember Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park\nDistrict (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the\nEBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.\nVice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides\nspecificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore\nalso support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated\nthat the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.\nSpeakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,\nGretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.\nMember deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point \"Going Forward\" Process.\nMember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National\nLaboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve\nIssuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley\nNational Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning\nServices Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish\nBalachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the\nfirst draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to\nfinalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)\nDeveloper RFQ.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the\ndecision-making process and selection of development team.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-02-02", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and\nprivate development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of\ndevelopers to put forth recommendations.\nMember Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.\nMember Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.\nThe Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process\nthat would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the\ndesign expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a\nnormal design and review process.\nMember Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate\ndevelopment experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer\nevaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was\nnot required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to\nweigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a\ndisadvantage.\nSpeakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.\nVice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time\nperiod and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the\n$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800\njobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on\nfacilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those\nhost communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial\nphase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the\nOakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-\ncost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred\nto LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of\nConveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it\nwill be title going to LBNL.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what\nwere the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create\nsome uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services\nManager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.\nVice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu\nof other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,\nreduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of\nthe initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.\nMember Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to\ngenerate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development\nmanager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the\ntertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,\nshopping, and sales tax.\nThe Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-02-02", "page": 4, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not\npropose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on\npotential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to\nthe table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the\nfinancial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon\nbecause there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.\nMember Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of\nother incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented\nthat owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has\ndiscussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns\nabout load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.\nStaff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is\nshort listed.\nMember Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the\nuser goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of\nAlameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,\nwhich was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL\nscenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.\nChair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The\nActing City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.\nMember Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer\nfor the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square\nfeet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the\ncenter and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the\nenvironment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)\ncement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that\nhe is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of\nknowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.\nThe RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member\ndeHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going\nForward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be\nable to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.\nMember Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy\nduring the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff\nwould ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.\nSpeaker: Gretchen Lipow\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-02-02", "page": 5, "text": "None.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-03-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, February 2, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.\n(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-013) Endorse \"Going Forward\" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going\nForward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public\nWorks Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and\nproject description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's\nenvironmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of\nconveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major\nentitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands\nExchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The\nworkbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a\nsummary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled\nnext week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The\nfirst and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and\na team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,\nenvironmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM\nRealty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for\nlonger term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State\nLands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There\nwill be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from\nthe Navy.\nMember Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of\nan RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property\nmanagement agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property\nmanager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done\nyet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-03-02", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and\nwould like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope\nfor an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as\nthere is an economist on board.\nThe project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,\non their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative\n(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their\nlonger term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be\nimplementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and\nroutes at Alameda Point.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be\ndiscussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.\nThe Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.\nMember Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park\nDistrict (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the\nEBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.\nVice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides\nspecificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore\nalso support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated\nthat the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.\nSpeakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,\nGretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.\nMember deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point \"Going Forward\" Process.\nMember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National\nLaboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve\nIssuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley\nNational Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning\nServices Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish\nBalachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the\nfirst draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to\nfinalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)\nDeveloper RFQ.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the\ndecision-making process and selection of development team.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-03-02", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and\nprivate development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of\ndevelopers to put forth recommendations.\nMember Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.\nMember Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.\nThe Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process\nthat would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the\ndesign expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a\nnormal design and review process.\nMember Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate\ndevelopment experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer\nevaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was\nnot required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to\nweigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a\ndisadvantage.\nSpeakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.\nVice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time\nperiod and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the\n$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800\njobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on\nfacilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those\nhost communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial\nphase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the\nOakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-\ncost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred\nto LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of\nConveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it\nwill be title going to LBNL.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what\nwere the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create\nsome uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services\nManager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.\nVice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu\nof other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,\nreduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of\nthe initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.\nMember Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to\ngenerate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development\nmanager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the\ntertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,\nshopping, and sales tax.\nThe Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-03-02", "page": 4, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not\npropose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on\npotential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to\nthe table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the\nfinancial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon\nbecause there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.\nMember Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of\nother incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented\nthat owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has\ndiscussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns\nabout load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.\nStaff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is\nshort listed.\nMember Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the\nuser goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of\nAlameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,\nwhich was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL\nscenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.\nChair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The\nActing City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.\nMember Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer\nfor the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square\nfeet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the\ncenter and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the\nenvironment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)\ncement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that\nhe is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of\nknowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.\nThe RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member\ndeHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going\nForward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be\nable to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.\nMember Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy\nduring the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff\nwould ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.\nSpeaker: Gretchen Lipow\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-03-02", "page": 5, "text": "None.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-04-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, April 6, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-032) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 2, 2011, Minutes of the\nSpecial Joint City Council/ARRA/Community Improvement Meetings held on March 15, 2011.\n(*11-033) Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council and BSA Sea Scouts -\nAncient Mariner Regatta.\n(*11-034) Approve the Proposed Sale of Two Grove Cranes to NRC Environmental Services.\n(*11-035) Authorize the ARRA Port Manager, NRC Environmental Services, to Replace the Pier\n2 Fendering System in an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000.\n(*11-036) Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with Scott Electric for Pier 3\nElectrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a Contract Not to Exceed $238,266 Using Remaining\nARRA Bond Funds.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded\nthe motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\nChair Gilmore moved Item 7-A to be the first item discussed under the Regular Agenda\nItems.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-037) Alameda Point Commercial Market Assessment.\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a presentation focusing on Alameda and East Bay market\nconditions and the implications for Alameda Point and its redevelopment, strictly to provide a\nmarket overview and not a development strategy, to determine the state of the market as it\nexists today.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-04-06", "page": 2, "text": "John McManus, senior director of Cushman & Wakefield was available to answer questions.\nChair Gilmore expressed concern that implementing a long term lease strategy that is niche-\nfocused will take as long as implementing a development plan.\nMr. McManus replied that a reuse strategy is different than a build-to-suit strategy, stating that it\nis important that it is clearly defined what is available. Advised a strategy to show potential\noffice buildings with a potential floor plan and be able to explain to potential tenants that all risks\nhave been removed and understand what can be delivered.\nChair Gilmore clarified that in order to effectively market Alameda Point, money needs to be\nspent upfront to determine concept buildings or concept plans apart from what the master plan\nends up being. Mr. McManus agreed with Chair Gilmore, stating that there needs to be a clear\ndefinition, and if it is left to the potential tenants to figure out, in an environment where there is\nso much vacancy, chances are that Alameda Point will not get their attention unless it's a very\nunique use with a big footprint.\nMember Tam inquired about the element of competition in the marketplace, asking what kind of\nrecommended capital outlay is needed for Alameda Point to have a competitive edge. Mr.\nMcManus stated that the good competitive news is that redevelopment and enterprise zones\nare not going to be competitors for Alameda Point.\nJoe Ernst, SRM associates, added that there is so much obsolescence of space - there is no\nlonger a need for more plain office space -- and it is a function of understanding the market for\nspaces and uses that cannot be developed elsewhere, and aligning with the right team to\ndevelop it. Vice Chair Bonta inquired if there are market segments performing differently than\nthe market trends. Mr. Ernst replied that those segments with superior performance include life\nsciences, such as the LBNL opportunity, light industrial, and R&D flex space.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the next step will involve doing\nmore research and return to the Board with ideas or strategies.\nChair Gilmore thanked the Deputy City Manager- Development Services and staff for the\noverview.\n(11-038) Review and Comment on Summary Report for the Community Planning Process for\nAlameda Point.\nThe Planning Services Supervisor and the Deputy City Manager- - Development Services gave a\npresentation on the Community Planning Process.\nSpeakers: Elizabeth Krase Greene, Adam Gillitt, Nancy Gordon, Gretchen Lipow, Helen Sause,\nCarol Gottstein, Susan Galleymore, Nancy Hird.\nChair Gilmore commented that she is looking forward to be able to discuss the financial\nfeasibility of the Alameda Point project with the public so the community can understand how\nmuch it will cost to develop Alameda Point. In the past, since the developer was running a pro\nforma, a lot of costs were not able to be shared with the public. Chair Gilmore stated that\ncertain costs are inescapable, no matter what is developed: infrastructure costs between $600M\n- $800M.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-04-06", "page": 3, "text": "Member Tam concurred with Chair Gilmore and added that economic underpinnings are critical\nat Alameda Point. Member Tam and Chair Gilmore expressed their appreciation to staff and the\ncommunity for all their time and effort in the Community Planning Process.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-039) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative\n- Highlights of March 3, 2011 RAB Meeting.\nMember deHaan reported that the RAB discussed the San Francisco Estuary Regional\nMonitoring program, a program that monitors 22 water sites in bay, and 47 sediment sites. The\nRAB would like the program to take on one area of Alameda Point to monitor. The OU2A site,\nadjacent to Encinal High School, was also discussed. Surface remediation was done, and final\nremediation will be completed. Tomorrow's meeting (3/4) will include an update on the\nSeaplane Lagoon.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-040) Update on Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Second Campus Request for\nQualifications.\nThe Deputy City Manager-Development Services gave a presentation on the LBNL Campus\nopportunity.\nRepresentatives from the development teams introduced themselves to the Council: Joe Ernst,\nSRM; Mary Pampuch, Lankford & Associates, Inc.\nSpeakers: Robert Todd\nMember Tam inquired whether any of the 21 applicants that had responded have the same type\nof potential development partner in RFQ process, in particular inquired if Alameda's partners are\nunique to Alameda.\nThe Deputy City Manager-Development Services responded that to her knowledge, the other\nsites are already owned by developers or have already teamed with private property owners;\nthe other applicants did not go through an RFQ process for a developer like Alameda, and none\nof the other teams are teamed with the other sites.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired when the announcement of the short list will be made and how short\nis the short list. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services replied that the call can come\nthrough at any time now and that three on the short list is reasonable. Member Tam inquired if\nthere was any value to engaging legislators. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services\nstated that letters have been sent to Stark and Swanson, but recommends waiting until the short\nlist comes out before Alameda starts lobbying.\nChair Gilmore thanked staff for the update and thanked the representatives from the\ndevelopment teams for attending and introducing themselves to the Board.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-04-06", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-06-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, June 1, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Vice Chair Bonta presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nVice Chair Bonta, Members deHaan, Johnson, and Tam\nand Chair -4.\n(Note: Member Johnson arrived at 7:07 p.m.)\nAbsent:\nMayor Gilmore - 1\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-048) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of April 6, 2011 and the Special\nARRA Meeting of May 17, 2011.\n(*11-049) Approve a No-Cost, Two-Year Lease Agreement with Friends of Alameda Theater,\nInc. for a Portion of Building 91 at Alameda Point.\n(*11-050) Transmittal of May 18, 2011 Webinar Presentation.\nVice Chair Bonta pulled item 3-B (Building 91) for clarification.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired why the rent for Building 19 is being waived, instead of having a\npaying tenant. Nanette Mocanu, Economic Development Division Manager, explained that\nBuilding 91 is being split between two tenants, one on a month-to-month term. The entire space\nis currently being marketed, and the lease has a 90-day termination clause. The building would\nbe vacant otherwise.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Member\ndeHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\nMember Tam moved for approval of Item 3-B. Member deHaan seconded the motion,\nwhich carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-051) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative\n- Highlights of April 7 and May 5, 2011 RAB Meetings.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-06-01", "page": 2, "text": "Member deHaan reported that the RAB is starting to look at the fuel distribution system\nunderneath the runway, adjacent to the lagoon. He explained that since it is fuel, the\nclean up might be problematic, but easier to remediate than heavy metals and PCBs as\nin other sites.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-052) Alameda Point Update\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a short update. Alameda Point was\namong six other sites LBNL short-listed for its second campus. Staff is working with the\ndevelopment team daily to prepare high quality responses to upcoming submittals to LBNL.\nThe final selection process will be in November.\nA two-hour developer interview was held on May 31st, which included a 30-minute presentation,\nby the development team. The presentation included case studies of projects they worked on,\nproject delivery, and public outreach plans. Staff plans to have other informal meetings with the\ndevelopment team.\nA community meeting is scheduled for July 13th from 7-9:30 p.m. Staff is looking at various\nsuitable venues, in terms of capacity and access. There will be an extensive outreach plan,\nincluding revamping and developing a separate website focused on LBNL, and a Facebook\npage which will be managed by a marketing company - all in an effort to access different\npopulations that have not been accessed before. Staff and the development team will be\nmaking presentations to different organizations throughout the city. Staff will provide a packet of\nthe community outreach materials to the City Council at its June 21st meeting.\nRegarding the larger master planning efforts of Alameda Point, staff held its first webinar on\nMay 18, 2011 to impart the financial basics on how the pro forma works more generically, and\ndetails on infrastructure costs related to the existing entitlement, which is the general plan. A\nTransportation workshop was held on May 26, 2011. There was a presentation that detailed\ncase studies of how other communities dealt with traffic congestion issues, how they addressed\nthose issues and moved forward, including Santa Monica, CA and Boulder, CO, which has\nsimilar density to Alameda. A Sustainability Workshop is scheduled on June 14th to look at\nother communities to achieve sustainability and implement some sustainability concepts.\nAnother webinar will be scheduled in July to follow up on details of pro forma, and the approach\nto get the community involved in the financial side. More developer interviews will be done.\nMember deHaan inquired if the transportation study is posted online, to which the Deputy City\nManager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that the report will also\nbe transmitted to the Board. Member deHaan complimented staff on the financial webinar,\nstating that he was impressed with a job well done.\nMember Tam inquired what proportion of backbone infrastructure cost will be needed for the\nLBNL site. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the amount is being\ncalculated. Phase one will not have much new infrastructure, but for build out, there will be", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-06-01", "page": 3, "text": "more improvements needed. Staff is also working with Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) on the\ncalculations. AMP will be able to serve the first phase without a lot of improvements.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired what the average number of participants was for the community\nengagement events and how the information is being disseminated. The Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services explained that the Transportation Workshop was not well attended, as\nthere was a League of Women Voters event on the same night. There were fewer than 20\npeople at the Transportation Workshop, and approximately 50 people attended the webinar (35\npeople attending online with approximately 10-15 present in person). The recording of webinar\nis available online, and the pdf of presentations will also be posted online.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired if the Sustainability workshops will be recorded, stating that the\ncommunity would take the opportunity to participate and view if it were available online, and that\nthere is value to holding the events in Chambers so that they can be broadcast and recorded.\nMember deHaan agreed, stating that the community watches meetings on the City's channel\n15, and although the audience is small in chambers, there are a lot of home viewers and may\nreach more people. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that with the\nSustainability Workshop in particular, the element of interaction from community is needed.\nVice Chair Bonta expressed his appreciation for staff's efforts regarding the July 13th event and\ninquired about other smaller events for community outreach. The Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services stated that the team has a calendar of events scheduled. They have\nmet with the Chamber of Commerce, and plan to attend and present at several joint mixers with\nthe WABA, PSBA, Rotary, League of Women, Business Association newsletters, Concerts at\nthe Cove etc.\nMember Johnson suggested giving a presentation to school board. Member Tam suggested\nincluding the Peralta Community College District Board community to gain support of\nenvironmental community. The Acting City Manager meets with a realtors association and\nplans to bring something more formal to them. Vice Chair Bonta asked that the Hospital Board\nbe included in the outreach.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Tam provided a brief report on the Legislative Action day of May 18th. On the budget\nscene, the delegation - Loni Hancock, Joan Buchanan, Mary Hayashi, Nancy Skinner, Bob\nWieckowski, and Mark DeSaulnier - seemed determined that they would have a budget to send\nto the Governor on June 15th because this is the first time Prop. 25 has been implemented,\nwhich stipulates that they won't get paid if the budget is not presented.\nRegarding redevelopment, the league is very clear about the priorities, they understand at least\nin the East Bay district, not all the legislators will be supportive, Hancock, Buchanan, Hiyashi\nand Wieckowski were opposed to keeping redevelopment, as they have seen through the\nGovernor's discussion that there has been abuses by some agencies. Assemblymember\nSwanson has seen benefits of redevelopment and understands LBNL's need for RDA funding\n(several cities in his district are on the short list). An option that the league is exploring is reform\nto deal with the abuses, including Senator Wright's bill, which tightens the definition of blighted\nareas in redevelopment and putting caps and mechanisms to avoid some of these abuses.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-06-01", "page": 4, "text": "Member deHaan inquired how the legislators discussed slicing out base conversion.\nThe\nDeputy City Manager - Development Services discussed a bill in circulation that carves out\nmilitary bases, a new bill from the League of Cities, and the CAL Redevelopment Agency and\nAssociation of Defense Communities. Senator Wiggins introduced a bill on behalf of\ncommunities with Bases, which staff will be monitoring.\nThe Acting City Attorney reminded the Board that this discussion couldn't continue, as it is not\non the agenda. It can be agendized on a future meeting if they want to discuss it further.\nMember Tam concluded her report.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Vice Chair Bonta adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf"}