body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-A
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
The meeting convened at 5:46 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Agreement with LFR, Inc. For
environmental consulting services at Alameda Point in the amount of $175,130 for a total
agreement amount of $249,000.
2-B.
Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute sublease(s) at Alameda
Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A.
Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
None.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,2,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
Chair Lee Perez noted that they did not hold a business meeting during December, although a
very nice social gathering was held. He noted that there was no discussion, and that the next
meeting would be held on January 19, 2005. He noted that they would decide how to carry out
the ARRA's wishes at that time.
Member DeHaan noted that while he was not part of the decision made at the last ARRA
meeting, he supported that decision. He was concerned that the process took much longer than
anyone could have anticipated, and that when he was Chair of EDC, he ensured that they were up
to speed on Alameda Point issues. He recalled several team members (Al Clooney and Dan
Meyers) who had passed away during this process.
Mayor Johnson noted that she and Member Daysog had been members of the BRAG as well.
Chair Perez noted that three active former BRAG members sat on the City Council, and that
hoped that their dedication would reach Sacramento and Washington, D.C. He noted that it had
been an honor to serve in this capacity, and acknowledged that change was necessary.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese recalled previous discussions to bring the redevelopment of the Point to the
mainstream consciousness of Alameda. He noted that the very light turnout at the ARRA
meetings did not meet that goal. He requested that the regular meeting time be changed to 7:30
p.m. in order to encourage more community participation. He noted that the closed session could
be held before the regular meeting.
Mayor Johnson suggested agendizing that item for the next meeting, and noted that a 7:00 start
time could be tried. A special meeting would be held on Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.
Member DeHaan requested an update on the Consultant Agreement to be placed on the next
agenda.
Chair Perez did not anticipate that there would be any further amendments to current consultant
contracts. He added that they could make an updated budget presentation at the next regular
meeting. They had anticipated some changes to the consultant contracts, and that they did not
2
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,3,"impact their contingency or any other line items contained in the ARRA-led predevelopment
budget.
8.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
8-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session: The ARRA received a briefing
from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 6:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
3
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-B
Thursday, January 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 8:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
There were no speaker slips.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3-A. Amending Resolution No. 010 establishing rules and procedures for Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority meetings by amending the starting time of regular meetings from 5:30 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m. (requested by Boardmember Matarrese)
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
Member Matarrese noted that this item is approved with the intent to increase public participation.
4.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
4-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel,
ARRA Secretary
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\1-20-05 Special.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-20.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-A
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:16 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 3, 2004.
2-B.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 18, 2004.
2-C. Resolution Supporting a Joint Local / State Effort to Speed Up Redevelopment of
California's Closed Military Bases.
Chair Johnson motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1 by Member Matarrese.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud gave monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance
process. At the January Meeting with the Navy we developed a Master Timeline with the Navy
and got an update on the status of some of the selective restoration sites. We discussed the first
phase footprint and key IR sites that are contained within the footprint and the ARRA made a
presentation at that meeting of our revised infrastructure costs for Alameda Point. We gave the
Navy an update of the status of the Trust exchange with the State Lands Commission. We let
them know that the legislation as been approved for the Trust exchange and that we had drafted a
draft exchange agreement that we had shared with State Lands Commission staff. Our legal
counsel had submitted it to their legal counsel and that we were currently awaiting comments.
Elizabeth Johnson, one of our planners at AP made a presentation to the historic advisory board
on Jan 7th where we gave them some background information on the historic district and the
actions that were underway relative to the historic district.
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,2,"On
Saturday,
Jan
22nd we had a tour with the Alameda Architectural Preservation. The group
came out and we toured around the base, specifically focusing on historic preservation issues. We
had an excellent turn out with well over 15 members attending, along with Page and Turnbull.
Two upcoming community workshops: the first one is March 3rd with the planning board; at that
one we will focus largely on land use options, a continuing dialogue of what's happening at our
first two community workshops. The next would be on Mar 23rd with the transportation
commission where we would focus more on transportation related issues obviously and
specifically on some of the discussions that we had at our last workshop for estuary crossings.
Our goal is take all of those transit options and try and funnel them down to a couple that we can
really study in depth as we move forward thru the process. So this is the continuing dialogue on
that issue with the transportation commission, again hosted with the APAC as well.
Member DeHaan asked how we are planning to get feedback from the Historic Preservation
Society on the tour and if they be part of the community workshop. Stephen Proud replied that
they were invited to participate in those meetings as an opportunity to make sure their comments
came through the workshop format and they were also invited to solicit and give us comments
independent of those workshops.
Member Matarrese requested minutes of that meeting to give us at least some indication of what
they might have said.
Stephen Proud began discussions on the ARRA led predevelopment budget: The ARRA has $3.5
million that is available to lead the predevelopment planning period. There was a slight increase on
Navy conveyance and on the land use planning side. At this point through the process we've spent
@ 45% of what we had budgeted and we' re about 12 mo. into an 18 mo. process.
Councilmember DeHaan asked if we were anticipating any contract amendments. Stephen Proud
replied that at this point, we don't expect there would be any contract amendments. We do have a
couple of contracts that have expirations date that were set for Mar 31st but we don't see
anything on the horizon that looks like it would result in one of our consultant contracts going up
in any extraordinary way in the near future.
Member DeHaan asked what the completion date is on the project. Stephen replied that this
budget was programmed to take us thru June 30th of 2005 -- an 18 month ARRA led pre
development period, from the beginning of 04 to the middle of 05.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC
There were no representatives from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there were no representatives
from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there was an APAC sub-committee meeting this evening
therefore there were no members available for an oral report.
2
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,3,"5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
RAB met on January 6, 2005. Key topics were the Seaplane Lagoon; site 17. The draft feasibility
study was presented. A timeline for implementing remediation for that site in 2006 was discussed.
This would be the actual remediation of contaminants in the Seaplane Lagoon. An update of
action on the Miller School and Woodstock Child Care Center, site 30 and the remediation
activities that went on there. New RAB member, Joan Conrad, voted in. Next meeting is February
3, 2005 at 6:30 pm.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Mataresse thanked staff for all the work done, particularly with getting community
workshops together and stated that he's very interested in the Transportation workshop on March
23rd, acknowledging that having a transportation infrastructure in place before a development
increases the value of the land because it's there and not an encumbrance. A meeting on February
18, 2005 is schedule to reactivate our liaison committee with AC Transit Propose to discuss
transportation with a BART liaison committee.
Chair Johnson suggests our liaison committee should schedule a meeting with BART, which may
need council approval. States BART is a big issue for Alameda.
Stephen Proud stated that the logistics had not been worked out yet, but mentioned that it would
be hosted as a joint workshop with either one of the boards or commissions and the APAC but
that the 4th workshop would be a more general public forum. There was nothing formal discussed
for a 5th workshop. Member DeHaan would like to see the Economic Development Commission
host the 5th meeting. Chair Johnson stated that discussions regarding EDC hosting had already
been done. Chair Johnson asked if there was a public outreach planned. Prior ones very well
attended. Great benefit that these workshops are broadcasted live.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 7:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
3
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRAminutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
5-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 5, 2005.
2-B.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 20, 2005.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Stephen Proud gave a monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance
process. He stated that on February 16th, a proposal was made to the Navy for the acquisition of
Alameda Point. Discussions with the Navy included a presentation about conveyance strategy
and approach for moving Alameda Point forward. The proposal to the Navy was very well
received and they expressed appreciation for the proposal. A series of follow-up meetings have
been scheduled to discuss environmental and economic issues, and parcel identification suitable
for transfer and phasing.
Next land planning workshop is scheduled for March 3rd This workshop has been broken up into
two pieces: the March 3rd meeting is co-hosted by the planning board and APAC and will focus
on land use alternatives that have been developed over the first series of public workshops. The
second part of this workshop will be a separate meeting on the March 23rd with the
Transportation Commission, which will focus on transportation alternatives. The goal is to come
back to the ARRA in April with a full briefing on the 2 workshops. A good solid attendance is
expected as was experienced in the past. Andrew Thomas from the planning department
continued to discuss benefits of having the workshops broken into two separate meetings. He
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,2,"stated the community expressed a desire to receive information in smaller quantities rather than
two much, too fast.
Mr. Thomas discussed estuary crossing and long term planning, not only for Alameda Point but
for the entire City of Alameda and that we will be presenting to the public the various
transportation possibilities: light rail connections to the Fruitvale BART along the regional
outline alignment to the aerial tram from the west end to the west Oakland BART and a number
of different options.
Chair Johnson mentioned the interagency liaison committee with AC Transit and talked about
transportation solutions. She would like to look at a system that uses the same tracks that are
currently in place in Alameda. She stated that this would dramatically cut down the costs of that
kind of transportation solution.
Andrew Thomas agreed and explained the difference between heavy gauge and light gauge rail.
The new street car systems are typically on light gauge, yet the old belt line was a heavy gauge
system. The issues with the solution of using the existing rails are on the Oakland side and the
ability to cross the Union Pacific lines at grade. The PUC rarely grants those kinds of approvals.
Chair Johnson pointed out that no matter what gauge rail system was used, that issue would have
to be dealt with. She believed the rail system alternative that should be looked at should be
focused on using the existing infrastructure in place and we should not spend a lot of money and
time looking at rail systems that don't fit our current infrastructure. Chair Johnson asked if there
were any costs estimates using the current rail and gauge.
Andrew Thomas stated that not all costs estimates were available but did have good costs
estimates for what it would take to put in a new system. Chair Johnson would like a cost estimate
using existing rails and Andrew Thomas explained the issues relating to costs savings for
existing rail system and creating cars that are designed for light gauge rail.
Chair Johnson mentioned that the San Francisco Muni system is using old cars and they work
very well. She also suggested that a transportation solution be in place even before base
development starts, and would like to find a solution for transportation throughout Alameda over
to Fruitvale BART.
Andrew Thomas agreed. He stated that they were meeting with the City of Oakland and the Port
of Oakland to get an idea on how these agencies feel about this, as well as with AC Transit and
BART. He mentioned that if an at-grade crossing of the Union Pacific Lines was obtainable,
then that option would look very good. If not, then we'd be looking at building an elevated
system or diving under. Member Matarrese suggested comparing what Caltrans has done
between San Francisco and San Jose. Chair Johnson suggested some sort of shuttle system get
started now.
Member Matarrese mentioned two items that were brought up at the AC Transit meeting. One
was electric buses which would make our fuel be AP&T instead of some oil company, similar to
golf carts.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,3,"Chair Johnson stated that the information given at the workshops should include the fact that
some solutions are never going to happen because they are so expensive, or at least not in the
foreseeable future. There are some solutions that are feasible long term, but we're looking at
short term feasible solutions that can get started even before base development starts.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A.
Recommendation to approve a 10-year lease agreement with Nelson's Marine for
Building 167.
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager introduced David Jaber, regional vice-
president of PM Realty Group. Mr. Jaber presented a short analysis regarding the Nelson's
Marine issue. Mr. Jaber recommends the lease and supports the market rent for Nelson's
Marine. He also analyzed the $34M difference that was presented by the boat yard attorney at
the last ARRA board meeting.
Mr. Jaber gave a brief background and discussed how the fair market value of the Nelson's
Marine rent was determined: Nelson's Marine was one of the first groups out to Alameda Point,
with a 5 year lease which contained a clause that allowed for renewal at 90% of fair market
value. This survey was performed by Dunn Associates and that helped determine the fair market
value. The fair market value component provided by Dunn & Associates was on the base rent.
When the rent survey was done, the focus was on four things: 1) review of the lease and the
leases, 2) site coverage ratio, 3) the gross rent and net rent conversion, 4) the review of the rent
per square foot.
Mr. Jaber gave a review of the leases, comparing the costs between two boat yard leases for
taxes, insurance, and maintenance. He analyzed the numbers -- using a 20 yr. term to help
explain the differential -- which showed that the $34M loss, proposed by the opposing four
boatyards, was not supported. His analysis further justified that the net lease proposed comes
out with the appropriate rate. Mr. Jaber concluded that the fair market value -- the 31.5 % based
upon the 90% of fair market value -- is appropriate for the lease. He included percentage rent,
the ability to prosper as the tenant prospers, sublease recapture, which doesn't allow the tenant to
profit by bringing in subtenants, rental increases, 2% every year, justified considering there is the
ability to reduce the land space by 75,000 sq feet, and lastly a 10 yr term is very appropriate.
Mr. Jaber recommended the Nelson lease for approval.
Mayor Johnson called a few speakers. Richard Lyons of Wendell, Rosen, Black and Dean spoke
on behalf of Nelson's Marine and addressed the legal aspects of the lease, explaining Mr.
Nelson's rights to extend the lease, right of first negotiation and the price for that right, and the
contractual obligation on the part of the City and Mr. Nelson to abide by determination of the
appraiser regarding the lease term. He requested that the two leases be approved.
Carl Nelson, president of Nelson's Marine thanked Mr. Jaber and Mr. Lyons and looks forward
to having his business here for at least another 10 years.
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,4,"Peter Lindh, representing the four boat yards came up to discuss the validity of the $34 million
shortfall that his clients projected if the Nelson's Marine lease is approved. He stated that the
$34M was based on the principles involved and that the actual lease terms themselves make the
shortfall about $36M.
Mr. Lindh explained that there were two specific flaws to the PM Realty (Mr. Jaber's )
argument. The first was that the two boatyards used in Mr. Jaber's analysis are not comparable
(triple net versus gross analysis); it's not fair market value. The second flaw is the .45 cents that
Nelson's is paying per square foot per month on maintenance. He stated the amount as
inaccurate and reiterated that the Nelson rate is not fair market value.
He discussed the cost of having a fixed rate - is $190,000 to the City of Alameda and stated that
the only adjustment that PM has suggested in their counter proposal is reducing the lease term
from 20 yr to 10 yrs. Mr. Lindh concluded and urged the Board, as a fiscal responsibility, to
require PM Realty to reevaluate and come up with a proposal that is more consistent with
economic reality and fair market value.
Chair Johnson asked if the City is going to lose money on this lease. Nanette Banks, Finance
and Administration Division Manager, Development Services, explained that the Nelson's lease
renewal was brought to the ARRA governing body for approval and the four boat yard attorney
raised questions about a $34M loss if we went forward with this lease. The ARRA Board
directed PM Realty and Development Services to research this issue. Ms. Banks further
explained that there hasn't been a counter offer, nor would there be, because according to the
Nelson's lease, they have the first right to negotiate at 90% fair market value and the appraisal
was to establish the fair market value.
Chair Johnson and Boardmembers discussed the issue of the Nelson's lease creating some unfair
advantage to other boat yards, and the original concern of the $34M loss. There were no counter
proposals to the Nelson's lease.
The Board approved the staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-0;
Abstentions-0
4-B.
Recommendation to approve a 5-year lease, with a possible (5-year) options with
Nelson's Marine for 400 linear feet of Pier 1.
No speaker slips. Recommendation approved and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4;
Noes-0; Abstentions -0.
4",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,5,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
Lee Perez, APAC Chair, spoke about the transition from the APAC to the various Boards and
Commissions which will be presented next month. Also, members of APAC have been working
very hard with staff in terms of planning the various public meetings, specifically the workshops
of March 3rd and 23rd. He expects a successful meeting.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
February 3rd was the last meeting. The next meeting has been rescheduled to March 14th from
March 3rd to accommodate the workshop. Three main items were discussed: 1) Remediation on
OU5, Coast Guard North housing. The final plan was due on February 18th, heading for a record
of determination and then implementation later this year. 2) Sites 6,7,8,9 by Encinal High School
- preliminary scope of work is out and final comments are due this month. Hope to proceed with
that in May 2005. 3) Discussion about location of some nuclear propulsion work and general
radiological materials and disposal out at the site in the Northwest Territory. A survey called the
Historical Radiological Survey Assessment is being formulated so that they know exactly what
happened in that location. A lot of material is put out at these meetings and the coordination of
these activities is something the public should be very interested in.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Bill Smith came up and spoke on various topics.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
5",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
5-B
Wednesday, April 6, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Vice Mayor Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 2, 2005.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Doug DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation on the March 3rd and March 23rd Community Workshops regarding
Transportation and the Preliminary Development Concept
Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, gave an overview of the planning process for Alameda
Point and the transportation planning process with presentations to follow. The consultant team
was also present for the first time at an ARRA Board meeting. Mr. Thomas updated Members of
the four major community workshops - that they've been very well attended. The Alameda Point
Land Use team has also had a number of briefings with the Planning Board, Transportation
Commission and other Boards and Commissions. There are two more major workshops planned,
the next one is scheduled for Saturday, May 7th, with the final community workshop in early
June. The plans are taking shape. For the next couple of workshops, the plans will be refined
with input from the community (both the transportation and the land use plans).
The March 3rd land use workshop will be rebroadcast on local cable channel 15 on April 7th, and
the March 23rd transportation workshop on April 14th.
Walter Rask and Jim Adams from Roma (Land Use consultants) were present, as well as
Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers Transportation consultants) to give respective
presentations.
1
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,2,"Walter Rask: Our agenda for this evening is two parts. The first part is to give an overview of
the preliminary development concept including the next steps. Part 2 - Fehr and Peers will be
presenting an overview of the transportation strategy focusing largely on the off base
transportation issues having to do with capacity of tubes and bridges and the major street
network. We'll be doing more work later internally on the base itself and their presentation will
conclude with discussion of the next steps in that process.
Land Use Slide Presentation
Mr. Rask presented the history of the Reuse Plan the ARRA adopted in 1996, which set forward
a basic framework for development not only of Alameda Point but also of the FISC and Annex
properties on the East side of Main Street. He discussed that we are only dealing with the area
west of Main Street. In 2003, the City Council adopted an amendment to the General Plan that
refined the Reuse Plan for mostly for the areas west of Main although there was a small area on
the northeast of Main and this set the basic framework for redevelopment of the base and the
targets for build out, the framework for the larger transportation system and perhaps most
importantly it set forth seven goals for redevelopment of the base: 1) to seamlessly integrate
Alameda Point with the rest of the community, 2) that Alameda become a vibrant new
neighborhood with a variety of uses in it; 3) to maximize the waterfront accessibility, 4) to
deemphasize the auto and to make new development compatible with the transportation capacity
that is available, and 5) to insure economic development, 6) provide a mixed use environment
and finally, 7) to promote neighborhood centers.
Mr. Rask discussed the challenges, including contractual commitments, large Historic district
area, ground water contamination, the Tidelands Trust places restrictions on the use of lands
under state tidelands and specifically excludes housing, the Wildlife Refuge, the green area, as
the effect of constraining development on the blocks between the western boundary and
Monarch Street, the 100 year flood area has to be mitigated either by raising the ground or
providing some kind of a sea wall, young bay mud poses problems of structural stability because
of the danger of liquefaction in earthquake events. There is also a whole gamut of regulatory
agencies that have a say on these matters. The plan as it currently stands has two major aspects.
The first is what we refer to as the framework plan that fixes the location and character of the
major streets and open spaces on the base and also identifies opportunities for certain civic
functions. The land use plan is the second half of the two part preliminary development concept.
Mr. Rask discussed the community concerns about Measure A, the Historic areas, etc. He stated
that the next steps in the planning process is to refine the plan and respond to the major issues
that have come up in the last workshop. One is a desire to more closely examine the notion of
neighborhood centers as the general plan calls for. More generally to address neighborhood
character issues. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit enhancements are a similar theme. At the next
workshop they will present some refinements, as well as new information on alternatives, and
then the refined transportation plan. Mr. Rask stated that the final workshop in June will be to
actually present the preliminary development concept and the transportation plan with the intent
is to bring it to the ARRA board in July.
Transportation Presentation
2
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,3,"Matthew Ridgway and Michael Keeling from Fehr and Peers gave the transportation
presentation. (Both the entire presentations are available for review and are on file with the
ARRA Secretary)
Mr. Ridgway gave an overview of the transportation strategy that has been developed and
discussed some of the major components for sustainable transportation, including land use
strategy, employment and retail, residential and retail, and to discourage auto use.
The
presentation included a menu of options and the challenges that go along with those options.
There was much discussion about the Tubes getting more constrained and congested from the
development within the region and Oakland. Mr. Ridgway presented some ideas about how to
minimize the impact on the tube.
The initial transportation strategy includes the use of ECO passes - the cost of purchasing ECO
passes will be built into the homeowner's association fees for anybody who lives at Alameda
Point. It will be built into the fees that are part of the employment component of Alameda Point
as well.
The plan also includes shuttle buses, enhanced ferry services to include bike stations, car share
programs, multi modal transit center, onsite transportation coordinator (a person who organizes
the car pools and van pools, makes sure the shuttles are operating efficiently) etc.
The presentation also included BART and AC Transit options/route alternatives as well as a light
rail option (Cybertran).
In June, the transportation options will be moved on to a more detailed evaluation and the next
steps include two major components: 1) continue to look at the long term transit options and 2)
take the short terms transit options that we've talked about and look at them with much more
detail so that we have something that is ready to construct on opening day of the project.
Another point, according to the MTC, in terms of land use densities to support transit, Alameda
would be considered suburban - rural, the density that you are talking about would fit into that
category, which in their mind would be something that in terms of regional funding you would
be very low on the list to compute for regional funding
Member Gilmore thanked Mr. Ridgway and commented that the presentation was very
informative ""if somewhat sobering."" Member Gilmore called several speakers:
first speaker, Helen Sause, made comments on the community workshops she's attended, stating
that the transportation system being developed is very critical. She discussed the need to find
partners with the rest of Alameda, not just with Alameda Point, and to engage the rest of
Alameda.
Second speaker, Neil Sinclair of Cybertran, commented on the light rail option and stated that he
anticipates being here in Alameda and continuing their development.
3
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,4,"Third speaker, Diane Lichenstein, APAC Chair, commented on the tremendous amount of work
and effort put into the community workshops and the preliminary development concept (PDC).
Emphasized continued dialogue with community.
Member Gilmore opened the item for discussion. Member Mataresse thanked staff and APAC
for hosting the community workshops with the boards and commissions, etc. and appreciates the
summaries of the meetings. He discussed the use of electric buses and liked the idea of the
duplex shop houses in the historic buildings. Has one regret regarding ""the Wall"" and
commented on the speed limit being dropped along Ralph Appezzato Pkwy.
Member deHaan: Stated his appreciation for everything that's gone forward and particularly
transportation, probably the most important segment. Had some concerns about the ferry service,
that it should service Oakland as well. He stated he liked the idea of the ECO Pass but had
concerns about how the fees are paid. He slso liked the idea of the tram. He stated that the
realism is that the ferry system, the bus systems and some other rapid bus system is the solution.
Member Daysog: Stated he was excited about the ECO pass and the BART shuttle alternative.
Stated that the transportation solution for Alameda Point is really the transportation solution for
the City of Alameda.
Member Gilmore: Excellent presentation with an incredible amount of information in great
detail yet very easy to understand. Agreed with Member Daysog that whatever transit solution
that we end up with is a transit solution for the entire island and not just for Alameda Point, and
that it needed to be in place yesterday. She made a specific comment about the potential light rail
connection from Alameda Point to the Fruitvale BART station. Stated that we can't lose sight of
the need for connections going off the island, but given our future developments - an ""across
island"" transit corridor as well which has the potential of taking people out of their cars as they
go from one end of the island to the other and generating more tax revenue for the city.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
APAC Chair Lee Perez commented on the tremendous amount of data received during this
evening's presentation. He thanked staff and the experts for their wonderful job of drawing in
citizens. Following the board's instructions, the APAC spent considerable amount of time
discussing what could replace the APAC. He mentioned the letter which was sent to the board by
APAC and hope that they will give it serious consideration. Mentioned the need of citizens'
input.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked and congratulated the APAC as well as staff for the incredible
outreach that was done because it has really shown in the increased attendance at the last several
4
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,5,"meetings. The APAC worked very hard to get the word out and it was nice to see the result and
to have a reasoned dialogued among all the citizens of Alameda.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese had nothing to report as he was unable to attend the last RAB meeting due to
illness. He stated he would be unable to attend the next meeting as well due to a special City
Council meeting being held at the same time. He will provide the secretary with the minutes of
the two meetings, so that they may be included in the packet.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Bill Smith spoke on various topics .
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the open session meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
5
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:11 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only.
There were no speaker slips.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Acting Executive Director, Bill Norton, gave a brief overview about the work session on the
ARRA Budget and introduced Development Services Director, Leslie Little, who introduced
staff : Nanette Banks, Jennifer Ott, and Stephen Proud.
Leslie Little gave a powerpoint presentation on the Budget Planning for Alameda Point. The
presentation focused on transition planning and preparation for the development of Alameda
Point. The information presented expresses the existing conditions in the current ARRA
budget and also the implications of some of the decisions that have been made during current
negotiations. Ms. Little discussed two options to consider: 1) how to transition in the event
that the developer (APCP) elects to proceed with the development of Alameda Point and, 2)
how to transition if APCP chooses NOT to proceed.
Ms. Little discussed the first scenarios (APCP proceeding), including the Alameda Point
Bond, and that the activities that are currently being paid from it would transfer as direct cost
to the developer; approximately 18 months. Other responsibilities would also shift to the
developer, leasing and property maintenance activities, other financials responsibilities like
project related tax increments, and current debt obligation.
The second option was discussed (APCP electing not to proceed). Ms Little noted that this
issue is a ""structural deficiency"" in the ARRA Budget. She stated that there are expenditures
that are greater than the revenues at this point. She explained that if the developer doesn't
elect to proceed, the key issues moving forward are: the Alameda Point Bond will be
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,2,"exhausted some time around Sept and October; there are a number of deferred costs, or
capital costs, that are expected would be part of the developer's pro forma; and the debt
payments that began to come due in 2006. Also included in the presentation was the current
ARRA staff load on the existing ARRA budget.
Ms. Little continued to discuss some challenges to the ARRA budget. She explained that by
2006 and 7 we will have spent down our fund balance and, by 2008, we won't have enough
to balance our budget. She discussed how a large part of the ARRA budget is contributed to
municipal services -- about 1/2 of what we take in annually, $10M in revenue. She stated that
the presentation is intended to start the conversation about the need to either increase
general fund revenue opportunities to tackle some of the costs, or decrease the general fund
expenditures out at Alameda Point because we don't have the resources to continue to
support them.
Ms. Little discussed the current pro forma and its assumptions regarding new public
revenues, primarily in property tax pass thru, the sales taxes, property transfer taxes, etc.
with the sale of the homes (new development) = revenues coming into the general fund.
She concluded the presentation, summarizing that staff is preparing for APCP to move
forward in the next two months and that we will need to transition quickly negotiate a
disposition and development agreement at 18 months and move into an implementation
mode; subsequently, if APCP does not move forward, there are implications regarding
dealing with long term costs over time. Ms. Little mentioned a subsequent ""phase 2"" ARRA
Budget workshop.
Councilmember de Haan expressed concern with the Navy's inability to fulfill the
commitment to the 18 mos. transition period. Stephen Proud addressed his concern by
explaining that we are trying to expedite the time line as much as possible, to the extent that
the Navy would be able to make the property available to us sooner. He discussed various
issues on the timeline that we (ARRA) have to accomplish, specifically the environmental
review process.
Boardmembers and staff discussed general leasing issues/opportunities at Alameda Point,
with Chair Johnson mentioning activities to attract film productions.
Member Matarrese expressed concern about the ""structural problem"" of the ARRA Budget,
stating that perhaps we' ve set the system up for failure - and that we may be providing
services that we simply cannot afford given our leasing capability. Leslie Little addressed
his concern by explaining that once there is a DDA, the actual costs that are being born by
the budget now, would have to be reduced significantly, specifically the municipal services.
Member Gilmore asked about insurance expenses. Leslie Little explained that the tenants
themselves carry liability insurance as part of their lease requirement.
Member Daysog initiated discussion about the proposed mitigation where the general fund
reduces dependency on the ARRA and absorbs 1.8million dollars in expenses. The
municipal services funding resources was discussed.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,3,"Member Gilmore summarized the challenges of reducing the amount of expenditures in the
ARRA budget, by allowing the general fund to absorb those expenditures. Bill Norton
replied that staff provided the ARRA Board with this detail to see the impact of the changes
on the general fund.
3-B.
Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Direct P.M. Realty, Acting as
Property Manager, to Enter Into a Contract with Courtney Giampolini to Waterproof
City Hall West (Building One) in an Amount not to Exceed $966,650
Nanette Banks provided photos of the extensive water damage in various locations of
Building 1(City Hall West). Building 1, like other buildings at Alameda Point, have
problems that require a lot of work, specifically asbestos remediation, lead paint and
waterproofing, roof and other capital upgrades. Ms. Banks introduced Rick Jones,
construction manager from PM Realty Group.
After Mr. Jones explained the problems with the buildings, he and Chair Johnson had
conversation about the contractor bidding process and if this process was approved by the
ARRA. Ms. Banks explained that in an exhibit to the property management agreement with
PM Realty, PM Realty is allowed to use their own process for selecting contractors for us.
Member deHaan, as well as the other boardmembers, expressed concern about the almost
$1M.cost for the building repair. Member Gilmore questioned the long-term ""guarantees"" to
this costly solution. She wanted reassurance that the same problems don't resurface in a
year, after spending $1M. Mr. Jones explained that there is a 10 yr warranty, which is pretty
standard in the industry.
Staff and boardmembers discussed other options for housing City Staff. Bill Norton
explained that there is no other space available for city staff to move into. There was also
further discussion about window replacements. Mr. Jones stated that 40 windows would be
replaced, and the other 200 are aluminum.
Member Daysog stated that the ARRA is in a fiscal crises and as such non-life threatening
projects, like waterproofing, I believe need to be delayed especially if the professional
opinion is that delay doesn't result in significant cost increases to the project.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Daysog but stated that (Building 1) is a workplace for
our workers and we can't have our city employees working in those conditions. She also
requested a briefing for discussion of the ARRA board the bidding process and requirements.
The Board approved the staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-1
(Daysog); Abstentions-0
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,4,"4. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\April 19.Special ARRA minutes.doc
4",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
One speaker slip from Helen Sause, however she was not present.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
4.
PRESENTATION
4-A. Presentation/Update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud briefed the Board on two different fronts: 1) the Navy conveyance process, and 2)
the land planning effort. A proposal has been submitted to the Navy - they wrote a counter
proposal that we responded to which is under consideration right now with them. We're hoping
to have an official response from the Navy by the end of June and that coincides with Alameda
Community Partners election to proceed timeline.
Mr. Proud gave a brief overview of the May 7, 2005 Community Meeting, commenting that staff
is pleased with the community's continued participation in the planning process and there was a
lot of good feedback. The next community workshop is June 8th at Mastick. The next step would
be to come back to the ARRA board with a copy of the preliminary development concept for the
regular July ARRA meeting.
Member Mataresse requested that a section be included that has a summary of compliance with
the General Plan amendment, compliance with the Economic Development Strategic plan and
compliance with other relevant plans, for that preliminary development concept that will be
coming back in July.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,2,"5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Provide Direction to the Acting Executive Director regarding the term of the lease
extension for Building 613 Sublease Agreement between the ARRA and Alameda
Point Collaborative.
Debbie Potter requested direction on a sublease between the ARRA and APC for building 13
which is currently being used as an office to house the Red Cross. She gave a brief history of the
lease and requested extension thru Dec 31, 2006 SO that it coincides with the overall development
plan for Alameda Point. Several representatives from APC spoke in support of a lease extension
until 2012, including Doug Biggs and Jim Franz.
In response to Member Matarrese regarding the time frame for development of that parcel, Bill
Norton replied that plans are for the Navy to turn that property over to the City at the end of
2006. Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, also noted that if we reach an agreement
with the Navy and the developer at the end of 2006, infrastructure and geotechnical work would
start in 2007
After discussion from Boardmembers regarding the timing of development, Chair Johnson
advised that it would make more sense to have the shorter term now and consider a longer term
when we know more at the end of Dec 2006, supporting staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-5; Noes-0
Abstentions-0
5-B.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Bill Norton, acting Executive Director, introduced this item with an overview of Part 1 of the
Budget Study Session. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented Part 2 - a
summary of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget - by walking the Board through the staff report. She
discussed overriding issues: the pro forma and the development assumptions at Alameda Point.
Member DeHaan raised the question regarding $1.8M that should be absorbed back into the
general fund. Bill Norton confirmed Member DeHaan's comments and advised the Board of a
new proposed budget for 05-06 for all city funds, including the general fund, noting that
revenues for different departments are down and we have accounted for this in our budget for the
next fiscal year.
There was brief discussion about the storage of surplus equipment the Navy left for the City.
Leslie noted some plans for the surplus equipment, including an auction to raise funds. She then
discussed the organizational structure for the Development Services Department, namely the
Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division - where 4 staff members are paid from the ARRA
Budget. Leslie discussed Building One tenants: Development occupies the entire 2nd floor; the
Alameda Development Corporation which maintains a 2nd floor office; and a storage room for
the Navy's records. Public Works, Fire Prevention and Information Technology occupy the first
floor and balance of the building.
2
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,3,"Leslie discussed the employee positions and vacancies in the department and how they fit
together with the three budget categories: Community Development, ARRA, and the CIC.
Municipal Services funding was noted in length, with Member Daysog requesting a separate
report/background information on the mitigation fund.
Bill Norton advised that there are still negotiations with the developer upcoming and if the
developer exercises their notice to proceed, they will make direct cost recovery payments, until
we have a disposition and development agreement, to DSD and the general fund.
Member Matarrese advised that we have to be prepared for the developer not exercising their
right to proceed, and that if we are able to segregate general fund obligations from ARRA fund
obligations, that would be the foundation for making a decision on anything less than the best
case scenario. Leslie Little concluded her presentation.
6.
ORAL REPORTS
6-A. Oral report from APAC.
There were no representatives from the APAC to give a report.
6-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave a brief overview of the last RAB meeting he attended.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
9.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
9-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
9-B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and U.S. Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
10. ADJOURNMENT
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,4,"Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
4
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A
Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the Approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The
motion was seconded by Chair Johnson and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A.
Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Steven Proud, project manager for Alameda Point, gave a brief update on Navy Negotiations,
focused on two fronts: submission of the conveyance proposal to the Navy; and the public planning
process. The conveyance proposal was submitted to the Navy in May and is under consideration by
the Navy right now. There have been meetings in support of that with some of the regulatory
agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and EPA. The next
meeting with the Navy to discuss the contents of the proposal is June 2, 2005. Mr. Proud reminded
the public and the Board that the next public workshop is on June 8th at the Mastick Senior Center,
starting at 6:30PM.
Chair Johnson thanked Mr. Proud and commented on all the positive feedback she's received from
the public regarding the workshops: that they appreciate all the hard work and effort and how
informative and helpful the presentations were.
Mr. Proud gave credit to Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, for coordinating the workshops, and
to Irma Frankel for coordinating the public outreach, and other staff members who have worked hard
to make sure the workshops are successful.
1
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,2,"Member deHaan asked when we're expecting the Navy to respond. Mr. Proud stated that we asked
for a response from the Navy by June 30th, which corresponds to the date in the conditional
acquisition agreement with Alameda Point Community Partners for there election to proceed.
3-B. Video presentation by the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York from the Alameda Naval Museum gave a brief (4 minutes) video presentation of the
Alameda naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York and Barbara Bach were two public speakers, both requesting a long term lease with
the right of renewal and the same terms for the ANAM.
Member deHaan thanked them for the effort they put in it and remarked that the video was
extremely informative. He commended them for the effort to get the shell improvements which were
over $700,000.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITMES
4-A. Report authorizing the Acting Executive Director to Execute a two year lease renewal (1-
year with 1-year owner option) with Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) for Building
77 at Alameda Point.
In response to Member deHaan's question regarding why the agreement is in front of the Board if
it's already been signed, Bill Norton explained that the agreement has not been signed by the
museum association, as they indicated they want at least a 5 year and probably a 20 year lease. So
they have not signed it. Mr. Norton further explained that the ANAM did have a 5 year lease.
However, there were performance criteria in the lease, but they did not have the ability to perform
over a 3 year period because they did not have time to actually occupy the structure until they got a
certificate of occupancy in March 2004, it's not reasonable to expect them evaluated on the
performance measure that they were required to. The original thought was to give them this prior
year plus 2 years upcoming, so that we could review the performance criteria during that period of
time. Mr. Norton advised, based upon some of the concerns that ANAM has, to modify the item to
authorize the Executive Director to enter into negotiations with ANAM for the lease, rather than
authorizing the existing lease agreement to be signed - enter into negotiations for a new lease.
There were several speakers, including the representative from Red Bridge Media, Ken Robles, who
is partnered with Veterans Administration Archival Department in Washington, D.C. in a historical
video project (video taping veterans) to keep the history alive.
Member Matarrese motioned for staff's recommendation to enter into negotiations for a
new lease with ANAM. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - O.
2
Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,3,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Oral report from APAC.
Chair Lee Perez was not present and the ARRA Secretary read written comments from Helen Sause
regarding her concerns on the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Chair Johnson advised that it was
unclear whether Ms. Sause's written note were drafted with Lee Perez as the APAC oral report, or if
she intended them to be just public comment.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese said he would have two RAB at the July 14th ARRA meeting.
6. ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body
has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker slip, Virginia Roberts, who supports Helen Sause's comments regarding
appointing a citizens committee to assist with the Alameda Point redevelopment.
Chair Johnson noted that public involvement is always encouraged and would like people to
continue to participate in the process.
7. COMMUNICAITONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
There was no additional communications from the Board.
8.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Chair Johnson advised that this item was a place holder in case it was needed, but that there was no
item to discuss.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, July 14, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:25 p.m. with Member Gilmore presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
After the Pledge of Allegiance Member Matarrese motioned to move the Closed Session (Item
3-A) to the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by
the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
None.
3.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
3-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
This item was moved to the end of the agenda.
4. PROCLAMATION
4-A. Proclamation to members of the APAC for their dedication and unwavering commitment
to the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore addressed the audience and APAC members. She spoke about how APAC has
helped the community understand the challenges and issues regarding Alameda Point. Member
Gilmore then read the proclamation and handed one out to each of the APAC members.
APAC Chair Lee Perez thanked the ARRA Board for the opportunity to serve over the last
several years - he spoke about how pleased they (the APAC) were with the response to the
Reuse Plan & the participation from the community. He also mentioned that it's been a long
haul over the last 12 years since they first started and they were pleased with the outcome so far.
Member deHaan, expressed his gratitude for the leadership and dedication that Chair Perez and
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,2,"all the other members of APAC contributed toward the planning efforts of Alameda Point.
Members Daysog, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson (who just arrived at this point) also expressed
their gratitude.
5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of March 2, 2005.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 6, 2005.
5-C. Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources extending the term for 90-
days and adding $54,000 to the budget for environmental consulting services.
5-D. Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
5-E. Recommendation to amend the approved FY 2005-2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000
for repairs to the Al Dewitt O'Club.
Member Gilmore motioned to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
6.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6-A. Presentation of the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point
establishing land use goals, transportation strategy and historic preservation strategy.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, discussed the updates on the Conveyance
process with the Navy and the status of the budget. The key topic discussed was the progress
with planning efforts regarding the PDC and introduced the document to the Board for their
review.
Mr. Proud advised that there are continuing discussions with the Navy on disposal strategies and
constraints with the property; and that we're moving forward with the Navy regarding a conveyance
agreement. He discussed the community meetings and the success in each of the workshops to
tackle specific topics that helped produce this draft document (the PDC). He further discussed
issues at Alameda Point (AP) about Navy conveyance and the land planning process.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, focused on the Community Reuse Plan and the draft
PDC. He discussed what the community's expectations for the development of AP and what the
real priorities are. He advised that the PDC was an integration of ""new"" with the ""old""
(Community Reuse Plan). Mr. Thomas explained the several Appendices of the PDC, which
included the Transportation Strategy, specifically the Broadway/Jackson feasibility study; and
the Historic Preservation element.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,3,"Regarding the Historic Preservation, Mr. Thomas discussed that there was a lot of community
involvement with questions regarding which buildings and homes to keep and which to get rid
of. The residential portion of the plan included 3000 new units: homes for sale and rentals.
There were several speakers who discussed various topics related to the PDC, including:
- Conversion of the naval base - Measure A
- Adequate school facilities at AP.
- Transportation planning
- Solar energy equipment
- Keeping the BOQ building for Veterans or Senior Housing
- Historic District Preservation
- Housing for all income levels
7.
ORAL REPORT
7-A. Oral report from APAC.
No oral report.
7-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese discussed topics from the last RAB meeting, including clean-up
methods, and how petroleum is being extracted. He also gave an update on the BCT activities
and the schedule for the site management program, which lists all the clean-up activities.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speaker slips.
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None
10. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:21 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Member Daysog presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 19, 2005
2-B. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to direct PM Realty Group, acting as
Property Manager, to enter into a contract with Manson Construction Company to dredge
The Alameda Point channel in an amount not to exceed $575,000.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
Presentation
3-A Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager gave a brief update on the AP conveyance
activities. There is a meeting scheduled with the Navy on September 29th to discuss, and come
to a resolution, on the ""divide' in the analysis of the value of the property. The outcome of that
meeting will be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting on October 5th Mr. Proud
introduced Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, to give an update on the Preliminary
Development Concept (PDC).
Mr. Thomas discussed staff's review of comments received from the public and from the ARRA
Board (of the July 14th meeting) and efforts to use this information to make revisions to the PDC.
The revisions include addressing and clarifying a number of issues, such as its role, its purpose,
and the Next Steps to clarify Historic Preservation issues. The document will also be revised to
include an additional appendix in response to some of the requests for more financial information
- the financial trade offs that are embedded within the PDC. The plan is to present the revised
draft PDC to the ARRA Board and the public at the October 5th ARRA Board meeting.
Revisions to the document will be in a red-lined, strikeout version so the public can very clearly
see where changes were made.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,2,"Mr. Thomas announced that we received a $250,000 grant Metropolitan Transportation
Commission Grant, a land planning grant to help with next phases of the planning for Alameda
Point, particularly around the transit center. There is also progress toward a memorandum of
agreement with BART on a $485,000. grant, a federal earmark that was received over a year ago
We have been meeting with representatives from the Navy and the Local Historic Preservation
Community to continue the discussion on the Historic Preservation issues that were generated by
the PDC, and that is in the context of the Section 106 consultation which is really a Navy lead
effort. A briefing to discuss the PDC and the 106 consultation process with the Historical
Advisory Board on Alameda Point is planned for October 6th. City Staff has also been invited
to
attend a League of Women's Voters workshop on September 29th and November 15th
Member Daysog called 2 speakers, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, and Neil Garcia
Sinclair of Cybertran who gave a quick update on the Cybertran/University of California/BART
coalition and the proposal of establishing a research center in transportation energy at Alameda
Point.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese was unable to attend last week's RAB meeting, so there is no report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker slip, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the VA,
development at Alameda Point; and various unrelated topics as well.
7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Daysog welcomed the new City Manager, Debra Kurita, who is also the Executive
Director of the ARRA, to her first ARRA meeting.
8. ADJOURMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 11:37 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Recommendation to Approve the Fourth Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
between the City of Alameda and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
Approval of the Consent Calendar item was passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;
Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
4.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-20.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Report from the Executive Director recommending the Approval of Alameda Power &
Telecom Sublease at Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Tony Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of the Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development concept (PDC) - A
Planning Feasibility Study for the Redevelopment and Reuse of the Former Alameda Naval Air
Station.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the revised PDC and discussed what the major
revisions were, including: alternative plans approaches, various constraints affecting the layout and
design, and a clarification in the executive summary that the PDC is a feasibility study, and not the
final ""plan"".
The revised PDC also included expanded discussion regarding Measure A issues, and a good
foundation for a solid transportation strategy. Mr. Thomas further summarized the revisions, stating
that the phasing program is conceptual and there was text added to include information on civic
community type facilities, churches and plazas, etc. emphasizing that the general plan calls for these
kinds of uses. There were a number of revisions to the Next Steps chapter, primarily the
environmental review and entitlement process for the first phase should our master developer choose
to proceed.
Chair Johnson called up the several speakers who discussed the following topics:
- concern about the insufficiency of neighborhood centers
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,2,"- a representative from AAPS requested a reuse study be included in the PDC for the historic
buildings
- a representative from the APC expressed their interest in continuing to be involved in the
development plan process
-
a representative from Operation Dignity expressed concerns about the Board accepting the
PDC in draft form
- representatives from HOMES and the Sierra Club expressed their appreciation and support
with the progress of the PDC compared to other developments.
Member Matarrese thanked the staff for providing the input and revisions. He agreed with the
speaker who mentioned that the Board should not approve a draft document; and rather, approve a
final document. He would like to see more information on a green standards plan and a plan for
sustainable communities and expressed concern about the word ""feasibility study"", afraid it might be
dismissed because it does not ""comply"" with the PDC. He further stated that the PDC document is
still conceptual. Members Gilmore and Daysog agreed with Member Matarrese's statements.
Member Daysog would like to see more information on the fiscal implications of the PDC, especially
on Phase II and Phase III.
Member deHaan reminded folks that there was a community reuse plan prior to this PDC, which
included the development of commercial and industrial spaces to maximize transportation.
Member Matarrese motioned for Council to direct staff to simulate the comments that were made
and produce a final document for approval. He requested the document be in red-line/strikeout
format so that revisions are clearly seen in the document.
City Manager, Debra Kurita, recommended that the draft revisions be text-only to save cost. It was
agreed by all Boardmembers to just bring back the document at the regular ARRA Board meeting in
November; there was no need to make a motion for this action.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, clarified some points to the Board. He stated that the
PDC is a component of the conditional acquisition agreement (CAA) that we have with APCP. Other
components include getting a conveyance agreement structure set forward with the Navy and then the
completion of the preliminary development concept. Based on the timing with regards to meeting
with the Navy, Mr. Proud recommended the revised document be brought back at the December
meeting, instead of November. All Boardmembers accepted this recommendation.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report, as Member Matarrese stated the meeting was the following day.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith spoke about various topics.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,3,"Alex McElree, Executive Director of Operation Diginity, requested the ARRA Board encourage the
City Council to fulfill the promise they made to Operation Dignity and to the homeless through the
homeless conveyance of the McCain/Feinstein Act and build the 39-Units (homes).
6.
COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-D
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 16, 2004
2-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 2005
2-C. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 1, 2005
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore).
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the ""text-only"" changes made to the July 5th Draft
PDC. The changes were made in response to comments heard at the July and October 2005 ARRA
Board meetings. Mr. Thomas summarized the major changes and asked that the ARRA approve the
changes as well as other modifications to the text, and identify final revisions in order to bring a
finalized document back to the Board at its regular meeting in February 2006.
A summary of the changes included:
- clearer description of the purpose of the PDC, identifies it as a planning study and not a
regulatory document without any legally binding effect.
- there is more emphasis and clarity that the plan for Alameda Point is a mixed-use plan,
maintaining financial feasibility and historic preservation.
- recommending work-live ordinance.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,2,"Changes were made in the Introduction, Land Use and the Next Steps chapters emphasizing that it is
the City's goal to have a sustainable environmentally sensitive development at Alameda Point. The
Next Steps chapter outlines the key issues that are still going to require additional study, particularly
the compromises and trade-offs. There is more description about how the non-Measure A
alternative will be evaluated in the EIR process; and further exploration of maintaining historical
preservation, as well as financial possibilities surrounding the historic buildings. Also included are
the next steps to implementing the Transportation Strategy.
Two appendices, the Transportation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality (Appendix E), were also revised.
Member Gilmore allowed the several speakers to make their statements prior to the Board making
their comments. The speakers discussed various PDC-related topics, including Historic
Preservation concerns regarding the Big Whites and the Hangars; requests for additional buildings
identified for Historic Preservation be placed on the HAB agenda/study list for February, and to
request and Historic Preservation Master Plan and an Adaptive Reuse Study to be done soon, or as
part of the Navy's Section 106 process. Also discussed concerns about the Seaplane Lagoon
development encroachments and non-measure A alternatives. Consideration of Building 3 for the
Neptune Beach Amusement Museum was discussed.
Alameda School Board representative thanked staff and the ARRA board for including the issues of
school facilities in the PDC. Alternatives in Action representative discussed issues regarding the
early termination of their lease and the ARRA's request of them for removal of a portable building.
Member Daysog asked what were the major changes to Appendix E (Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality). Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that there was clarity added
to the language and that the financial feasibility study done for the first phase will be replicated for
subsequent phases. There will be a better understanding of the financial feasibility and fiscal
neutrality questions once we are clear on the development programs. Member Daysog further
discussed his concern regarding the Measure A and non-Measure A options, and Phase I revenue
generation. Mr. Proud explained that projections made in the document have a built-in fiscal
mitigation payment which will come directly from project proceeds to offset public expenditures and
public revenues that we collect. Member Daysog requested more detail and clarity on the property
taxes for use on a range of services; he also requested a better understanding on the fiscal mitigation
payment and operational issues.
Member deHaan addressed issues in the body of the PDC and, with the consensus of the other board
members, requested several action items to be completed by staff:
1. Expand the paragraph in the Next Steps chapter to elaborate on the Historic
Preservation - what the Navy is doing concurrent with us on their studies.
2.
Provide more clarity on the commercial development plan for the 336,000 sq. ft. of
retail and identify the commercial endeavors being pursued.
3. Provide separate analysis (off-agenda) on the HazMat clean-up, scenario of costs
between single family vs. multi family, etc. for financial feasibility.
4. Regarding the timeline and series of studies to be completed on the Historic
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,3,"Preservation: Emphasize the need to get information at the earliest possible date so that
the information could be used in the process of developing a plan which is then
ultimately evaluated in the EIR, and NOT when the final EIR comes out.
5. Appendix E - What would Phase I of Fiscal Mitigation payment be? And an
explanation of why we are not contemplating municipal services fee (like Bayport)?
6. Continued emphasis that this ""Preliminary"" plan document is a step to a ""Final' plan.
All Boardmembers accepted staff recommendation to bring back a Final version of the PDC in
February 2006.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Boardmember Matarrese reported on the RAB meeting from November because he did not attend
the Dec. meeting (he was attending D.A.R.E.) There was a presentation on the remediation
strategies for Site 27, between Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Nelson's Marine. There were a
wide range of options (9 remediation strategies), and there was a uniform recommendation and vote
to advise the Navy to use the most efficient and rapid remediation strategy.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Marilyn York, Barbara Bach, and Ken Robles of the Alameda Naval Air Museum spoke about their
proposed 10-year lease. Chair Johnson advised that they are looking forward to receiving the lease
for review but have not seen it come to the Board yet.
6.
COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
Boardmember Daysog requested the Board address Gail Greeley's issues regarding Home Sweet
Home and moving a portable building. Member Matarrese requested an off-agenda report
addressing this same issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,4,4,AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-01-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- January 4, 2006- 6:40 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Auctions by the Bay, Inc.
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Staff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. The ARRA provided directions to
the real property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:55
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 4, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. February 1, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 4, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures for Special Legal
Counsel; Resolution Amending Resolution No. 002 Regarding the Powers and Authority
of the General Counsel.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out that the only difference between the City
Council policy and the ARRA policy is the unlawful detainer policy.
Approval of 2-A was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
Member Gilmore motioned for approval of 2-B as written, with the caveats to receive a
written report on unlawful detainers and revisit the policy in 6 months. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes -0;
Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of the Final Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, requested formal acceptance of the PDC. Acceptance of
the PDC represents an important step in completing some obligations made in ARRA's
agreement with the selected master developer, APCP: complete a plan with the help of the
Alameda community to identify the development opportunities at Alameda Point and the key
tradeoffs and challenges.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,2,"Page 2
As described in the plan, the PDC does not represent the FINAL development plan for Alameda
Point. It is a planning study with the basic message that to get through an entitlement process
and a planning process, and to actually see implementation will require some tough compromises
and decisions that have not yet been made. The PDC clarifies that when the important decisions
are made, all the necessary information will be available to the public and to ARRA. Important
issues are emphasized in the Next Steps chapter. The plan for the redevelopment of Alameda
Point will continue to evolve as we move through the entitlement process.
Member Daysog thanked staff for the memo provided by Darin Smith of Economic Planning
Systems (EPS) detailing the assumptions. He requested further sources, methodologies and
assumptions regarding information in Table 3 and in Table 4 - property taxes, assumptions in
terms of housing values, industrial and commercial, property transfer taxes. Member Daysog
explained that this information would be helpful for future generations of Alamedans to track the
fiscal health of this project.
There were several speakers on this item:
Birgitt Evans - represents the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS). Thanked
staff and Andrew Thomas for the PDC. Discussed concerns with removal of two seaplane
lagoon hangars (Bldgs. 11 & 12). Recommended construction of height-limited buildings to
preserve vista for future generations.
Elizabeth Krase, AAPS - thanked Andrew Thomas. Discussed concerns regarding the timetable
for the Preservation and Adaptive Reuse Studies, and the potential loss of the BOQ, Big Whites,
etc.
Joan Konrad - discussed importance of examining Measure A non-compliant alternative plan for
Alameda Point redevelopment and safe and easy walking distance to destinations - schools,
work and shopping.
Diane Lichtenstein - concerns about the constraints of Measure A. Reiterated that the PDC is
only a draft and wanted to emphasize the flexibility of the plans.
Helen Sause - commended Staff and the City on the PDC, stating that the public input has been
valuable. Discussed priority to see the development without restrictions of Measure A. Urged
ARRA to keep flexibility in development of the PDC and keep the alternative plan that would
permit AP to be developed in accordance with good planning principles.
Chair Johnson closed the public comment portion of this item.
Chair and Boardmembers thanked Andrew Thomas and the staff for the PDC. Member Gilmore
was particularly pleased with staff's response to public input and the Board's comments about
the Next Steps chapter. She emphasized that what's outlined in the Next Steps chapter gets
accomplished, yet not to tie ourselves down to a specific timeline, particularly since we don't yet
have the property. Chair Johnson agreed, stating that it was surprising how many residents don't",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,3,"Page 3
know that ARRA does not own the property yet. Member Matarrese repeated the notion of
ensuring ample time for dealing with Historic properties, having advanced notice for ARRA,
Planning, and the public - to understand what's ahead.
Member Daysog motioned for approval of this item. The motion was seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
3-B. Recommendation to Approve a 20-year Lease with the Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration (MARAD).
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager of DSD, presented the Board with the
lease, gave an overview of MARAD, a tenant on the base since 1997, and explained that the
lease negotiations have been going on since May 2002. The lease being presented included two
components: the lease combines the MARAD warehouse and pier uses.
In addition to generating, under this new lease, a proposed $1.8 M in the first two years with 3%
increases, MARAD is the largest electricity user in Alameda and responsible corporate citizens.
They' ve already spent $1M on dredging, an ARRA obligation, but MARAD put the money up
front. Chair Johnson discussed security fencing, possibilities of reconfiguring least intrusive
manner.
Member deHaan asked whether MARAD discussed possibilities of shouldering relocation of
Hornet and the different scenarios regarding the Hornet's location. Ms Banks replied that
MARAD couldn't make an initial investment and it is an obligation of ARRA, but that the 3%
increase in rent should pay for whatever decision is made. Member deHaan stated that MARAD
should strive to find dollars to relocate the Hornet, since it's to their benefit. Chair Johnson
suggested that MARAD may have better access to homeland security money.
Under the new lease, gross lease revenue for the first 2 years is 1.8M per year. Net is $800,000
to ARRA Chair Johnson requested a copy of pro forma. She also emphasized an important
attachment - Exhibit H - which outlines ARRA's obligations under the lease. Ms. Banks
explained that those obligations were negotiated down from the standard lease.
Member deHaan stated that MARAD is one of the best tenants at Alameda Point, but is
concerned about the 20 year cost to maintain the operation, and that they're not an asset for the
ambience of the development. Member Matarrese doesn't have a problem with MARAD being
here, recognizing that it's a multiple-use development; there is some industrial and commercial
use.
Chair Johnson expressed concern about a provision, in the MARAD lease, relating to Trident.
She questioned why they were intertwined, and why there is not separate, employer liability
insurance.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, explained that insurance is something that MARAD
and the Federal government can't get and it's in our interest to have this insurance in place.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,4,"Page 4
Mike Hampen, PM Realty Group, further explained that liability insurance of piers is required
whether there is a port manager or not. Ms. Banks said that the reference to Trident will be
removed, as there is no reference in naming the port manager in the agreement.
Member Matarrese requested an analysis on the risk assessment and liability of lease, stating that
staff and the City Attorney are being paid to review leases and contracts, not the responsibility of
the ARRA Board (to review leases, etc.). He recommended bringing this item back and the need
to keep MARAD as a tenant, to see the Navy in legacy.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Matarrese's request, stating she'd like a better definition of
what the potential expenses and risks are. She stated that MARAD is an excellent tenant, and we
don't want to lose them; we just need to understand the lease better. She also requested that the
Trident provision be completely separate and not included in the MARAD lease.
Member Gilmore expressed concern about the lease not being included in the packet for review.
She prefers to receive copies of complex documents and decide how deeply to look at the
documents or how much to rely on the staff report. Chair Johnson recommended that, at the
least, significant attachments (like Attachment H, etc.) be summarized in the staff report, or
be
included in the package.
Without a formal motion, all members agreed to continue this item to the March 1, 2006
ARRA meeting with a request for a more detailed analysis of the ARRA's risk assessment
and obligations under the MARAD lease.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave an overview of the Jan 5th meeting: The major item on the agenda was
the Petroleum Hydrocarbon Program update, highlighting the status and technical explanations
of the remediation taking place on sites spread across Phase 1 and several in Phase 3. He stated
that there was an amazing mass of contaminants being removed: jet fuel, gasoline, etc. The next
RAB meeting is Thursday, Feb 9.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan requested an update on the Tinker Ave. / Webster St. exchange, stating that it is
key to fully developing FISC.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,5,"Page 5
Member Matarrese reiterated the Dec. 2004 ARRA-approved intent of requesting all ARRA
leases (and licenses) come to ARRA, so they know what the arrangements are with tenants on
the property and to maintain their responsibility to the LIFOC.
Chair Johnson requested an update on the Hornet. Leslie Little, Development Services Director,
informed the Board that there is no lease negotiations ongoing at the time, and there has not been
an existing lease with the Hornet for 2 years. Ms. Little will provide a report to the Board at the
next meeting. Ms. Little reiterated that updates are provided to the ARRA in monthly financial
reports.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday - March 1, 2006-6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA, US Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:20
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
March 1, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-03-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-04-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday - April 5, 2006- 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 5, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-04-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-05-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- May 3, 2006--6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair
Johnson - 4.
Absent:
Member Daysog.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:25
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itura Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 3, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-05-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-06-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. June 7, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:08 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Certification of Golf Course EIR and Authorization to Proceed with Negotiations
with Port of Oakland and Army Corps of Engineers.
Elizabeth Johnson, Base Reuse Planner, presented an overview and requested certification of the
final EIR for the Alameda Point Golf Course and Hotel Project. The draft EIR was circulated in
2004, with revisions prepared in 2005 to accommodate additional information regarding
wetlands on the site. The response to comments is also complete. Janie Alsep and Mark
Windsor of EDAW, and Jack Fink from Moffat Nichol Engineers, the consultants who assisted
in the preparation of the final EIR, were present to answer questions from the Board.
Chair Johnson asked if there was a time limit to start the project once it is certified. Elizabeth
Johnson explained that the EIR is programmatic which allows us to go forward with negotiating
with the Port or the Army Corp to get materials for the site. Chair Johnson wanted to clarify to
the public that, at this point we haven't seen that the project is economically feasible; that we're
not moving forward with this project, and this is just a very preliminary action. Elizabeth
Johnson concurred and further explained that the point of negotiating to get the dredge material
would be to determine the economic feasibility.
Member Gilmore clarified that if/when the project is determined to be economically feasible, we
would still need a separate EIR for the Hotel/Conference Center. Member deHaan and Elizabeth
Johnson discussed the current dredging at the Port of Oakland and that Alameda Point is the
secondary site to receive this dredge material, the primary site being Hamilton Field Wetland",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-06-07,2,"Page 2
Recreation. In response to member deHaan's question regarding the value of the dredge
materials, should the golf course project NOT go forward, Elizabeth Johnson explained that we
would be paid a Tipping Fee for the dredge materials.
Member Daysog questioned the delay in having an economic analysis. In response, Chair
Johnson reminded the Board that there was a several-year process where this consideration was
going on - we had a Hotel expert and even had an RFP on hotel complexes. At that time,
however, the downturn in the economy left the only people willing to propose a project was that
we owned a five-star hotel and paid them to manage it, and that was something the ARRA
wasn't willing to do. Elizabeth Johnson further discussed that the ARRA, in 2004, directed staff
to go ahead with preparation of the EIR in anticipation of the Hotel market coming back. Debbie
Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, concurred with this discussion,
adding that the hospitality industry has taken a while to bounce back since 9/11. She further
explained that once the EIR is certified, and we negotiate a Tipping Fee with the Army Corp and
the Port of Oakland that makes sense, then we can restudy the issue of the economic viability of
the project.
There was one speaker on this item, David Kerwin, who asked when and how often soil testing
will be done, expressing concern about loosened toxic materials if the property is not used for
a
golf course. Elizabeth Johnson responded that there will be a site-testing protocol in place.
Approval to certify the final EIR was motioned by Chair Johnson and seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 1 (Member
Daysog); Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese stated that he was unable to attend the last meeting and has no report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-07-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. July 5, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:50 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
Member Gilmore lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 7, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions
-
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese did not have a report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-07-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-08-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- August 2, 2006-5:46 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of Case:
Kienowski Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
ARRA gave direction to legal counsel to support the Chapter 11 Plan.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Staff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. ARRA provided instructions. No
action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Since Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 2, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-08-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
2-A
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 2, 2006.
2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
Recommendations to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Three-Year
Consultant Agreement with Trident Management, Inc. in the amount of $325,000.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented an overview of the Trident Management
Agreement and the port services they provide to Alameda Point, primarily to MARAD and the
Navy to Service the ships. Trident has been providing port services for Alameda Point since
September, 1996. Their original contract expired in 2002, and they are currently on a month-to-
month status with an annual rate of $474,636.
In 2004, the operating subsidy to Trident was reduced, and in return, the ARRA relinquished its
share of the Trident sublease revenue. In the fall of 2004, Trident and the City Manager (Jim
Flint) mapped out an agreement for a new five-year contract, which was never memorialized into
a contract. Since that time, staff has been attempting to renegotiate the contract.
Before the Board tonight is a three-year contract that can be mutually agreed upon by the City
and Trident",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,2,"Member Gilmore asked for an explanation of why we did not go out to bid. Ms. Little explained
that, since Trident was the inaugural port service provider, we tried very hard to work something
out with them that was less expensive than what would have been charged historically. Staff
also recommends that at the end of this three year contract that we do go out to bid.
Member Matarrese requested that the Board receive the policy on bidding and what the contract
is, recognizing that it is a legacy and wants to make sure, going forward, we eliminate that
uncertainty.
Approval was motioned by Member Gilmore and seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow (9/7) and will have a report in
October.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker, Elected East Bay Regional Park representative, Doug Siden, Alameda
resident. Mr. Siden discussed as background that the EBRPD has been participating with the
City of Alameda in the planning process for the former Naval Air Station over the last 10 years.
EBRPD's concern has been to see parkland included at Alameda Point located at what has been
called Triangle Park (between the Hornet and the City's mini park along the shoreline). It has
always been shown in the studies that this property was going to be a parkland. In support of the
City's process, the EBRPD has applied to the State of California for a grant from Prop. 12
monies, and EBRPD has received $250,000, which is designated for the Triangle Park.
Mr. Siden expressed the concern of the EBRPD that under the provisions of Measure 12, land
tenure has to be secured by the end of this year, and the project has to be completed and the
money expended by the end of next year. So there will be another planning process, but the
money will be lost in terms of the City of Alameda using it at the Triangle Park, if it cannot be
expended by the end of next year. The Park Agency will re-apply and be able to use the grant
money somewhere else, but will need to move forward on an alternative grant use because of the
same requirement of completing the project by next year. EBRPD would like to get started with
the first portion of improvements to the Triangle Park. Included in their plans is to begin
creating a grassy area for picnics, parking, and tie-in with the City park upgrade, with an
interpretive center. They would also like to showcase green building, install solar cells for
energy and upgrade for an aquatic center.
Mr. Siden also discussed Measure AA, a $225m bond with the first 25% going to cities based on
population. The City of Alameda received over $2m, and that money would soon be expended.
EBRPD is looking toward the year 2008 to ask the voters to extend the same provisions so that it
would not be a new tax but rather a continuation of an existing measure.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,3,"Member Matarrese and Chair Johnson asked what portion of Triangle Park Improvements the
$250,000 would buy us. Referring to a map, Mr. Siden described the lower end toward Encinal
High School and the City's mini park and said that the EBRPD will maintain it.
Member Matarrese asked the ARRA Executive Director, Debra Kurita, to get staff to work on a
way to accomplish us getting this investment in town. He expressed concern that the deadline
for getting the land dedicated and completing the project is fast approaching and requested this
item be moved up on the priority list and brought back to the ARRA Board.
Debra Kurita responded that staff will agendize and bring this item back to the Board at its next
meeting on October 4, 2006.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-26,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, September 26, 2006- 6:01 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding APCP's withdrawal
from Alameda Point and from negotiations with the Navy.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:35
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
September 26, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-26.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. October 4, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:05 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 2006.
Approval of 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.
Member deHaan had questions about two of the subleases due to their duration and requested
information about the specific tenants, as well as an overview of current leasing prospects.
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration of DSD, explained that TransFreight Express wants
to relocate their corporate headquarters and distribution center at Alameda Point. The other lease
is to Makani for Building 19 to be used as R&D and office space. It is an alternative energy
(wind-based) company that may also be interested in using the runways for experiments. Leslie
Little, Development Services Manager, indicated that there continues to be ongoing interest in
the buildings at Alameda Point, but pointed out the obviously expensive building improvements
necessary to make them usable, which tends to limit some potential businesses.
Approval of 2-B was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
2-C. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to Execute a contact agreement with
WRT/Solomon E.T.C. in the amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area planning activities
for Alameda Point.
Member deHaan inquired about the source of the $250,000 and whether we are in a position
today to approve the contract, given the master developer situation. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse
and Community Development Manager, explained that this is pursuant to a $250,000 grant
received from MTC - with City contribution of $3,000 - for the purpose of more detailed
planning of the transit node. To not go forward at this time means losing the grant. This study
will impact future land development plans; traffic and transit issues will need to be addressed
regardless of who the developer is.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,2,"Page 2
There was one speaker on this item, Diane Lichtenstein, who praised the four workshops
outlined in the contract and requested that after each workshop a summary report to be generated
(perhaps in the local newspaper as well as the City's website). She also recommended
expanding the scope of the ferry analysis beyond the half-mile radius of the station as presently
indicated. She also requested that all drafts of the report be available electronically.
Approval of 2-C was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Status Report on East Bay Regional Park District Request for Long-Term Lease.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, stated that, at the September
ARRA meeting, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) representatives Doug Siden and Mike
Anderson indicated that EBRPD is ready to begin funding improvements at the 26-acre
Enterprise Park through the use of Measure AA and Proposition 12 money (totaling $500,000).
A portion of the Proposition 12 funds ($100,000) specify that land must be secured by the end of
this year, and the project must be completed and the money expended by the end of next year. It
also requires a 20-year lease on the land. According to the staff report, there could be a smaller,
Phase 1 lease or a lease for the entire 26 acres. There are several other leases in place that
encumber some portions of the 26 acres, including Alameda Soccer Club (until 2008) and the
Hobby Shop (until 2010).
Member Daysog mentioned that 11 years ago, there was concern that EBRPD wanted an RV
parking lot as part of their plan for this land. Ms. Potter confirmed that this is no longer an
option.
Doug Siden, elected EBRPD representative, reiterated the funding and timing requirements. He
introduced Mike Anderson, Assistant General Manager, who presented a map of the proposed
area and plans. It consists of 10.6 acres and excludes current leased properties. Ultimately, the
District would like the entire 26 acres but could start with this plan. Proposed plans include
family picnic sites, clean up of the tennis and basketball courts, development of the shoreline
trail to tie to the existing beach area, and clean up of the beach and boat launch areas. Future
plans include a natural planning resource area and interpretive center, as well as boating
instruction at the marina.
Chair Johnson pointed out that other community groups have looked at this site, and also
questioned what would happen if the community would rather keep some of the facilities as they
are. Mr. Anderson responded that if the City prefers to have more community input about use of
this area, EBRPD could either use $100,000 of the funds somewhere else in order to not lose
them - trimming their ultimate project to $400,000 - or use that first $100,000 to simply clean
up the beach area and shoreline trail. Chair Johnson stressed that more community feedback
about what type of use for the area is preferable is needed before committing to a 20-year lease.
Member Matarrese felt that the primary areas to spend the $500,000 should be the beach, bay
trail and picnic grounds. Mr. Anderson agreed that this should be doable and hoped to move",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,3,"Page 3
forward in negotiating a lease for these specific areas. Member deHaan expressed his desire that
EBRPD continue to be involved in the area and asked how the funding stream would be
maintained in the future. Mr. Anderson indicated that possibly a small assessment district would
have to be established if the project becomes larger. Member Matarrese stated that he would like
a long-term commitment from EBRPD for the area. The consensus among ARRA members and
EBRPD was the first priority is extending the Bay Trail from the boat ramp along the beach to
the Hornet; if additional funds remain, the other areas will be considered.
Member Matarrese motioned that EBRPD make improvements on the Bay Trail from the
existing boat ramp as far north as possible, including cleaning up the beach. If additional
funds remain, they would be used for the picnic area and former RV parking lot. Staff was
directed to negotiate a lease with EBRPD to accomplish this. Member Daysog seconded the
motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update.
Debbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an Alameda Point update
presentation to the Board. The presentation included a chronology of the ARRA's negotiations
with the Navy and an explanation to the community on how we went from ""no cost"" to paying
$108.5 million for the Navy property. Ms. Potter also discussed the master developer, APCP's,
election not to proceed with the project and presented staff's recommendation for an initial next
step.
Ms Potter summarized the genesis of how we got from a no cost EDC to a 108.5 million dollar
purchase price: She explained how the ARRA's PDC and the general plan call for over 3 million
square feet of commercial development. In January 2004, however, the Navy sent a letter
requesting that we submit a formal amendment to our ""no-cost"" EDC application to formerly
make the case about why we felt like we continued to be eligible for a ""no-cost"" EDC. The
Navy's letter further stated that it could not continue to work with us to negotiate on our early
transfer without such an amendment. The letter also said that they were more than happy to
negotiate a ""for-cost"" EDC with the ARRA. Because the Navy would be the ultimate entity to
deciding whether or not we were still eligible for the no cost EDC and because they had clearly
communicated to us that they felt we were no longer eligible and because legislation was in the
works to preclude no cost EDC's in the future, the ARRA made a decision that it would be more
effective if we sat down and negotiated with the Navy for a for-cost""conveyance. We started
our ""New Beginnings"" with the Navy in 2004 but the federal government also eliminated no cost
economic development in 2004 and none of the bases that are closed as part of the BRAC 5 are
going to eligible for a no cost economic development conveyance, most of those properties are
going to be disposed of as is where is. So it took us a little over 2 years to negotiate with the
Navy to prepare the PDC and to negotiate a land price. And in June of this year we concluded
negotiations with the Navy with a draft term sheet that included a $108.5 million dollar purchase
price. On September 21st, APCP withdrew from the project, citing the downturn in the
residential market and that they could no longer support the $108.5 million line price given the
land plan.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,4,"Page 4
With that negotiation process and chronology behind us, and the withdrawal of our Master
Developer, Staff is proposing, as the initial next step, that we test the market through a request
for qualifications (RFQ) process with the current term sheet. In the event that we are unable to
identify a replacement development then we would work with the Navy on an alternate
disposable strategy, most likely a public sale, an approach that the Navy had been taking of late.
Chair Johnson asked about the on-going work with the Navy, in the event that a buyer under the
current term sheet doesn't come forward. Ms. Potter answered that we will continue to run our
leasing program, and the Navy will continue to run it's environmental clean up program. Chair
Johnson also asked about the cost of working with the Navy to move forward with alternatives if
a replacement developer isn't identified. Ms. Potter explained that the ARRA's budget did
consider a scenario where the master developer didn't go forward and staff is funded in the
ARRA budget and consultants would probably need far fewer consultants then we've had when
we've been in activity negotiations on a term sheet and those kind of things, but we would still
need to work with our environmental consultant and our out side counsel, those costs are
included in the ARRA's budget.
To answer Chair Johnson's question about what types of consultants would we still continue to
need, Ms. Potter answered that we would continue to use an environmental consultant because
we comment on all of the Navy environmental clean up documents. Chair Johnson asked if we
should ask the Navy to pay for the consultants at that point.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, clarified that these are consultants that we use to
protect the City's interest when it comes to the work that the Navy's doing on clean up as well as
if there gonna be issuing opinions about the tidelands trust, then we need to have our experts
weighing in about the tidelands trust and where were believe the legal issues are and those kinds
of things.
Member Daysog began a discussion regarding the ARRA's no-cost EDC agreement with the
United States Navy. He referenced several paragraphs of the Navy's letter to Debbie Potter dated
April 7, 2003 regarding the basis for the Navy approval of a no cost EDC. Member Daysog is
very concerned about the $108 million purchase price, stating that if APCP couldn't work
it
through, that it would be difficult to find a replacement master developer. He'd rather see the
$108 million go toward public amenities that have been contemplated.
The Chair, Boardmembers and Staff discussed, at length, the challenges we faced and the
available options we continue to deal with in order to move forward. Member deHaan and Chair
Johnson discussed researching a concept that looks at phases in the future to anticipate changes
in the market. The Board also expressed their interest in going back to a no-cost EDC (build less
residential), but Ms. Potter explained that, according to the Navy, a no-cost EDC was dead,
because a project that included less residential was not economically viable. She said, however,
that if the ARRA desires, we could continue discussions with the Navy about convincing them
that were still eligible for our no cost EDC. She further discussed that the ARRA does have an
agreement, an executed MOA with the Navy, but that the Navy is going to require us to submit
an amendment to that no cost EDC.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,5,"Page 5
David Brandt further clarified the more fundamental legal problem which is, we would have to
amend our EDC application and unfortunately, the Navy will argue that there's no more legal
authority over a no cost EDC so we would be essentially be giving up our no cost EDC.
Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese would like more information and analysis about whether
we are legally able to hold the Navy to the existing no-cost EDC agreement.
Member Daysog expressed the importance of involving the public so that the $108 million isn't
spent on projects that veer so far away from the community resource reuse plan and the public
amenities that have already been contemplated. Ms. Potter addressed Member Daysog's concern
by noting that the negotiated price of $108.5 million was based on a proforma that provided
fiscal neutrality, provided for the sports complex, provided for the open space, provided for 25%
affordable housing, so all of the goals that has been identified over the years were taken into
account and provided for with that land purchase price. Granted that tax increment was pledged
to the project that was part of it too, but it provided in all of the transit, the shuttle, the ecopath is
all of the things that have been talked about over the last several years, were all accounted for in
the proforma that had the $108.5 million dollar land purchase price.
Member deHaan asked about the process used at other closed military bases, including Mare
Island and the Presidio. David Brandt explained that the Presidio was conveyed under a trust but
that federal legislation is needed for that. Mr. Brandt said that we could approach our delegation
to ask if that's feasible.
The first speaker on this item, Pam Telschow, expressed how glad she was that the ARRA was
going back to consider every option and that they are not just going to jump into looking for a
new Master Developer. Chair Johnson expressed her opinion that she felt it was a remote
possibility that another developer would just step right in where APCP left off. The second
speaker, Helen Sause, also echoed Ms. Telschow's concerns and the direction of the Board,
urging them to select and find those developers that have very deep experiences in commercial,
light industrial retail, and other forms of development. She also suggested that the selection
process involve the community. Chair Johnson wanted the public to have a full understanding
that although the Development Services Dept. has received numerous inquiries, those inquiries
may not be viable. The third speaker, Elizabeth Krase, recommended we find a master developer
that would keep keeps more of the historic buildings.
Member Matarrese commented that he is heartened by the attendance of tonight's meeting and
that it's very important that we also look at the strength of our controls on the planning and our
city restrictions on development. He further stated that the comments from the speakers are
valuable and would like to see them translated into where we go forward. Member Daysog
commented that it's absolutely vital for the City of Alameda through the ARRA to continue to be
a leader in converting the base and to not allow the Navy to be in the drivers seat through
a
public action process. There was further discussion about the caretaking of the property and
requesting that the Navy return to those responsibilities.
Debbie Potter summarized the direction from the Board and other issues to explore: researching
the legality and shear logistics of the numbers to see if we can revert back to a no-cost EDC; the",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,6,"Page 6
parallel path of moving forward with an RFQ process to see if there is a developer who wants to
step into the existing field; a public sale; federal legislation on a trust; caretaker issues, etc.
A motion to initiate an RFQ and to reevaluate all other options discussed was motioned by
Chair Johnson and seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese attended the September 7th meeting, highlighting issues regarding additional
radiological testing of sites 1,2, and 32. There was also an update on site 25, the Coast Guard
north housing and a observation of a violation of the marsh crust ordinance (trenching and
digging). Member Matarrese would like the City to investigate further.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Per Member Matarrese's earlier discussion of the RAB meeting regarding Site 25, Member
deHaan requested an update at the next regular ARRA meeting on the status of Site 25.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. November 1, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006.
Member Daysog pulled Item 2-A to articulate what he meant when he referenced certain letters
regarding the ARRA's No-Cost EDC with the Navy. He reiterated his point that if we could
return to the original understanding of the housing units that could be built-out per the
documents agreed to by the ARRA and the Navy, perhaps we would not have to pay the
$108,000 million the navy is now requiring. Member Daysog wanted to make sure this point
was captured in this evening's meeting, since it was missed in the Minutes of October 4th.
2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore was not present
at the 10-4-06 ARRA meeting).
2-B. Recommendation to approve consultant agreement with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers for
Pier Condition Analysis at Alameda Point in an amount not to exceed $170,226
Approval of 2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Project Update
Debbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an overview on the Master
Developer RFQ process. At the direction of the Board, the RFQ was issued on October 19th with
a mandatory bidder's conference on Monday, October 30th. There were 20 firms that attended
the bidder's conference. All due diligence documents were provided on a CD and an FTP site
available for all interested firms, and a comprehensive download of the land planning, the
environmental issues, the public trust, summary of term sheet; and an opportunity for those
present to ask questions. One-on-one meetings were also offered with the firms intending to
respond, with nine firms signed up. Responses are due December 4, 2006 and need to be",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,2,"Page 2
accompanied by a $20,000 non-refundable filing fee. The responses received will be evaluated
and brought back to the ARRA should we receive responses with a recommendation to enter into
a 45-day negotiation period.
There was one speaker slip, Andrew Slifka, long-time Alameda resident and also a representative
of the Carpenter's Union in Alameda County, and speaking on behalf of the Construction
Building Trades Council of Alameda County. Mr. Slifka addressed concerns and disappointment
with the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) withdrawal from the project since they had
a Project Labor Agreement with APCP. He urged the Board to look at the same requirements for
any developer that should come forward, because Project Labor agreements bring value to the
community, well-paying jobs with benefits, careers and local work opportunities.
Member Daysog asked if specific questions regarding the financing of the project were outlined
in the RFQ. He commented on the financing/business model associated with revitalizing the
Catellus project and how it was distinct from the business model that was employed for the rest
of Alameda Point. He also discussed incorporating a different business model.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, responded that developers will be asked who their
source of capital is and for a deposit of ""earnest money"" in the amount or $1 million before a
developer is selected. This information will be provided to the Board.
Member Daysog asked if the potential developers understood the amount of property open for
redevelopment. Ms. Potter responded that the $108 million purchase price is based on Phases 1
and Phases 2, which is essentially everything but the Wildlife Refuge and the area south of
Atlantic Ave. and north of the 26-acre park, plus the golf course. David Brandt also clarified that
we were careful to let the developers know that the PDC wasn't an entitlement.
Member Matarrese asked whether a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) was presented to the
bidders as part of the package that APCP (former master developer) put together. Debbie Potter
responded that a PLA was not included in the RFQ and that it was not a requirement of the City
when the first master developer was selected; but that a PLA was voluntarily agreed to by at least
two out of the three finalists during the first master developer selection process.
Member Matarrese requested that bidders be notified that a PLA was part of the original
agreement and that the City does have a policy on prevailing wage. He was concerned that
bidders would try to make their numbers work at the cost of labor. Ms. Potter said that a copy of
the previously agreed-to document will be posted on the RFQ FTP site.
Member deHaan discussed extending the current month-to-month leasing policy to a year-to-
year policy in anticipation that the master developer would start taking down property. David
Brandt acknowledged that the current ARRA direction is that all leases over a year come to the
ARRA, and that potential tenants are told that redevelopment is imminent so long term leases are
not being offered. This is being reevaluated to decide whether to start bringing longer term leases
to the ARRA.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,3,"an agreement (not even actually shoveling dirt or tearing down buildings, etc.) David Brandt
responded that the soonest would be two years. Member Gilmore commented that this increases
the timeframe ""window"" and recommended that when staff returns in January with the study
session of the leases, it might be worthwhile to take a look at not just the 3rd and 4th phases, but
the 1st and 2nd phases, too. Ms. Little clarified that we will be presenting an entire overview of
all the leasing and it can be compared against the PDC.
No action was taken on this item - it was an update and for informational purposes only.
3-B. Alameda Point Environmental Remediation Update: Western Shoreline - IR Sites
1,2, and 32, Soil at IR Site 25 (Coast Guard North Housing), and Compliance with
Marsh Crust Ordinance
Debbie Potter gave an update on the clean-up status of these specific IR sites, as requested at the
October 4 ARRA meeting. Peter Russell, environmental consultant from Russell Resources, was
available to answer questions from the Board as a follow-up to the staff report provided.
Member Matarrese's main concern was the Navy's option to install an engineered cap rather than
a soil cover over landfill waste. Member Matarrese, along with the rest of the Board members,
discussed at length their preferred alternative: having the Navy scoop out the landfill sites and
haul it away.
Debbie Potter discussed the process by which Peter Russell reviews all documents the Navy
promulgates regarding all IR sites. She explained that we comment during the public comment
period, but we do it at a staff level. She agrees with Member Gilmore about the policy-level
decision that we want clean-up to a level that supports the community reuse plan and the PDC,
and that the Navy has committed to clean-up to the reuses that are identified in the PDC. Ms
Potter further explained, and reiterated by Peter Russell, that the ARRA-preferred option to
scoop and haul the landfill is not economically feasible - and an engineered cap is potentially
equally effective. She said that the City advocated the engineered cap since the beginning when
we secured the pilot grant from EPA. Ms. Potter stated that the engineered cap is financially
viable and is scientifically the best solution, a decision staff concluded in consultation with
environmental experts.
Member Matarrese commented that he had issues with the feasibility, that it didn't sound so
daunting at the RAB meetings and that the scoop and haul option is actually feasible. Peter
Russell responded that from a technical standpoint, the scoop and haul option would cost more.
Debbie Potter sought direction from the ARRA as to a response for the public comment period
due to the Navy by Nov. 10th",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,4,"Page 4
Member Matarrese motioned to direct staff to submit a letter to the Navy during the public
comment period to include the ARRA policy aspect and endorse the preferred solution of
scoop and haul, rather than an engineered cap. This motion was seconded by Member
Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Report was covered in discussion of Item 3-B, above.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Mayoral Candidate, Kenneth Kahn, stated that it would be an honor to serve with all of the
members of the Board.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan clarified a comment that was made regarding parolees working at Alameda
Point. He stated that we indeed had parolees working at Alameda Point about 10 years ago
through the Volunteers of America Program, under the control of the Navy. He explained that
we were short of man-power, so we utilized San Quentin inmates that were being transitioned for
landscaping and maintenance.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-12-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 6 2006- 6:15 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 7:00 p.m. to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA staff provided the ARRA with facts and background information regarding disputes
with Trident Management Inc., our port managers. Direction given to staff. Nothing more
to report at this time.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:12
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itura Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-12-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-01-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday. January 2, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 6, 2006.
2-B. Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
2-C. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the
Standards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613.
Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese
and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Tam
was not present at the 12-6-06 ARRA meeting).
Approval of Items 2-B and 2-C was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report as Member Matarrese was unable to attend the last RAB meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed opportunities of the cruise ship industry, citing that the docking of
cruise ships in San Francisco earned $10 million per year. Member deHaan requested that staff",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-01-02,2,"Page 2
investigate this opportunity further, particularly the deep water docks included in the MARAD
lease. Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said the item will be agendized and be brought back to
the ARRA.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-02-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. February 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 2, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 16, 2007.
2-C. Approve Sublease for Tenant at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Selection of a New Master Developer for Alameda Point.
Each of the four master developer teams provided a formal presentation to the Board, in the
following order, chosen at random: Lennar, Suncal, United World Infrastructure, Catellus. After
the formal presentations, there were several public speakers, most of who encouraged the Board
to not make a selection tonight and/or until further information was provided by each of the
teams. At approximately 9:50 p.m., Chair Johnson closed the public comment period and
recessed the meeting for 10 minutes. After the recess, each team approached the podium and
answered questions from the Board. Because of the in-depth nature of the questions, the Board
allowed the teams an opportunity to take the questions as ""homework"" and provide responses at
a later date to be determined.
The Board requested canceling the Regular ARRA meeting of March 7 to consider
scheduling a Special ARRA Meeting on March 21 to continue this item. The Regular
ARRA meeting of April 4 will be the fall-back date in case staff isn't ready by 3/21.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-02-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-02-07,2,"Page 2
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
The RAB meeting on Feb. 1 gave a very interesting presentation on heat removal of volatile
materials in the groundwater and in the soil. Apparently when the electro-heaters are activated,
they use more electricity than the entire rest of the island. It heats the grounds up to 28 feet deep
up to 98 degrees C, which is just under boiling. It takes approximately 1.5 years to cool back
down but is a very effective means of remediation currently in progress at two sites: Bldg 360
(Phase 2 and very contaminated), and Parcel 17 near the seaplane lagoon east. There was also an
update of that area with a data gap sampling near the Hornet soccer field and bay trail. Surface
samples upwind of the Hornet soccer field was highlighted as an area of concern.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Eugenie Young spoke about the cruise ship opportunities at Alameda Point.
At approximately 11:52 p.m., Member Matarrese moved to continue the meeting beyond
midnight, seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5,
Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
Bill Smith spoke about various topics.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m with a moment of silence in honor of Assistant City
Attorney, Byron Toma's father, Takeyuki Toma, aka ""Dick"" Toma, who passed away this
weekend. He served in WWII as part of the 447th Japanese American Regiment.
Respectfully submitted,
Stune Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-02-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-04-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, April 4, 2007- - 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and Chair Johnson
- 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Alameda Point Tenants (ANAM; USS Hornet; Puget
Sound International)
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff presented reports to the ARRA regarding the status of the leases with ANAM, USS Hornet,
and Puget Sound International. Staff solicited and received guidance and direction as to each of
the leases.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Alameda Point Tenants (Edge Innovations)
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff presented a report to the Board and the Board provided direction to Staff.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Initiation of Litigation (Gov. Code section 54956.9(c))
Number of cases: 1
Staff presented recommendation to the Board. Direction given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Strugg
Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 4, 2007",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-04-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday. May 8, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:13 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 2007.
2-B. Review and approve all new and existing subleases at Alameda Point.
2-C. Disposition of Personal Property - Proposed Sale of 45 Foot Yard Tug Boat.
Item 2-C. was withdrawn. Approval of items 2-A and 2-B. was motioned by Member
Matarrese, seconded by Member Tam and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;
Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Consideration of Master Developer Partnership Agreement and Master Developer
Selection.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview on the
status of the of the Master Developer process. She summarized that, on April 4, the ARRA
selected Catellus and Lennar Urban as co-master developers and the Board requested they return
with a Partnership Agreement in 30 days. On May 2nd Catellus and Lennar submitted a non-
binding term sheet that described general provisions that would be included in a yet-to-be-
determined Operating Agreement. The term sheet contemplated a 60-day time frame for
completing the partnership agreement. The evaluation team reviewed the term sheet and
concluded that it raised more questions than answers regarding the potential to reach a
partnership agreement. Missing terms included: the use of third party equity capital, how
additional partners could be added, and what constitutes default under the agreement. Important
items deferred were remedies for breach of contract, dispute resolution, percentage of vertical
development reserved for each partner, etc. Concerns about the ultimate management structure,
cost of third party equity funds vs. self financing and approach to development resulted in the
determination that it was unlikely a partnership agreement can be negotiated that maximizes
timely, cost effective, market driven redevelopment of Alameda Point. Staff recommended that
the Board reconsider the partnership approach and select one master developer. Staff identified
Catellus as the better partner for ARRA as they are self financing and their minimum IRR
requirement is the lowest.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,2,"Page 2
Each of the master developer teams was given 10 minutes to make final comments (in this order:
Catellus, Lennar, and SunCal) before the Board began discussion of the item.
There was one public speaker, Richard Rutter, who discussed his support of staff's
recommendation to select one Master Developer.
The following motions were made:
Member Matarrese motioned to set aside the Partnership Agreement approach and select
just one Master Developer. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 4, Noes - 1 (Gilmore).
Member Matarrese motioned to appoint Catellus as the Master Developer. Motion was
seconded by Chair Johnson and failed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 2 (Matarrese,
Johnson), Noes - 3 (Tam, deHaan, Gilmore).
Member Tam motioned to select SunCal as the Master Developer. Motion was seconded
by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3 (Tam, deHaan,
Gilmore), Noes - 2 (Johnson, Matarrese).
3-B. Approve Draft Comment Letters on Record of Decision for Installation Restoration
Sites 1 and 25 and Authorize Executive Director to Submit Comment Letters to the
Navy.
At the last meeting, Member Matarrese asked staff to prepare comments on the draft ROD for
Sites 1 and 25. Member Matarrese requested that the bottom-line and desires of the ARRA is
stated right up front as an introduction of the letters.
Member Matarrese moved to approve the letters with the edit of repeating the end goal
right at the front of the letter. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report, as Member Matarrese was on vacation and did not attend the meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker, David Howard, who spoke about car-ownership for low income
individuals and families of the affordable housing development at Alameda Point.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,3,"Page 3
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:57 by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Have Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-06-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 6, 2007-6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
2151 Ferry Point, Alameda, CA
Negotiating parties:
City of Alameda and Alameda Naval Air Museum
Under negotiation:
Lease price and terms
ARRA received an oral briefing from its Real Property Negotiator, no action was taken.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal Companies
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding the status of
negotiations with SunCal, and provided negotiating direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 6, 2007",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-06-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-07-18,1,"Approved
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the
City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:53 p.m. with Mayor/Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor/Chair Beverly Johnson
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Marie Gilmore
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Doug deHaan
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Frank Matarrese
Vice Mayor/Boardmember/Commissioner Lena Tam
2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Item 2-A. Recommendation to Approve Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between
ARRA, CIC, City of Alameda (Alameda) and SCC Alameda Point, LLC (SunCal).
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, introduced staff and those involved in the ENA
process: for SunCal was Bill Myers, Amy Freilich, their Counsel, and Steve Elieff, President of
SunCal. For ARRA was Matt Fragner, Real Estate transaction attorney and special Counsel to
the ARRA, and Jim Musbach Financial Consultant from EPS.
Ms. Little gave a powerpoint presentation as an overview of the ENA process, citing the purpose
of the ENA:
-
Define redevelopment and entitlement process for Alameda Point
-
Provide a framework for negotiation of a Disposition and Development Agreement
-
Establish a process for negotiating and executing various other transaction
documents.
Included in the presentation was a summary of the major terms of the ENA, including the length
of term, schedule of performance, initial payment and cost recovery, project labor agreement,
fiscal neutrality, project pro forma, existing city leases, and transfers.
Next steps included:
-
SunCal to provide a pre-development schedule for achieving mandatory and non-
mandatory milestones within 30 days to be updated quarterly
-
SunCal, in conjunction with ARRA staff, to commence project planning and
negotiations
At the conclusion of the presentation, there was concern by all Councilmembers/Boardmembers/
Commissioners of three issues included in the ENA, specifically regarding: 1) the financial
structure and knowledge of who the financial partners are before the DDA process, including the
reference to the 5% contribution relative to the DDA; 2) the liability of the acquisition price of
$108.5M ; and 3) prohibiting transfers during the ENA period.
At 9:50 p.m., Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess so that the SunCal team could discuss these
issues with their principals. The meeting reconvened at 10:22 p.m.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-07-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-07-18,2,"Matt Fragner, with the Councilmember's/Boardmember's/Commissioner's approval, revised and
recited the precise language modifying the three specific issues of the ENA.
ouncilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner deHaan motioned to approve the ENA with
the modifications to the specific sections in the ENA. Motion was seconded by Vice
Mayor/Boardmember/Commissioner Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5 Ayes,
0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.
3.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:27 by Mayor/Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-07-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-08-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 9:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Absent: Boardmember Marie Gilmore
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 18, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority/Community Improvement Commission of July 18, 2007.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o
noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve a 12-Month Contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in the
Amount of $185,000 to Provide Negotiation Support and to Conduct a Fiscal Impact
Analysis for the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Leslie Little gave an overview of the contract and work scope of Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS), explaining that they will assist in developing the business plan and fiscal impact
assessment for Alameda Point. Leslie affirmed Chair Johnson's question about whether the cost
will be reimbursed by SunCal. Member Matarrese clarified that, since EPS is the current
financial consultant under contract with the ARRA, this is an extension of that contract. Chair
Johnson encouraged holding negotiation briefings and sessions in open session, to the extent
possible, in order to keep the public better informed on significant issues. Member Matarrese
agreed and complimented staff, stating that having the last ENA negotiations right in full public
view was successful.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the contract, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), 0 noes, 0
abstentions.
3-B. Authorize Executive Director to Initiate Negotiations for a Short Term Large Parcel
Lease and Caretaker Agreement for the Former Alameda Naval Air Station North Housing
Complex",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-08-07,2,"David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, summarized to the Board that the Navy's caretaker
obligations for the former North Housing Complex will expire in September, and recommends
that the ARRA assume caretaker and maintenance responsibilities. He discussed that it would be
a simple conveyance to gain control of the property so that it can be leased. The property is still
fully operational but deteriorating rapidly. Mr. Brandt discussed the BRAC process: as soon as
the property is declared as surplus, the Local Reuse Authority (ARRA) is responsible for
screening the property. This process could take as long as a year, but there are several options
for conveyance, including a public benefit conveyance for the park, a homeless accommodation
request, or negotiated EDC for cost. Chair Johnson suggested trying to acquire all the property.
Member deHaan questioned the legal ramifications for the conveyance process, and taking over
with a no-cost EDC. Mr. Brandt explained that the Navy's position is that they are not governed
by the old BRAC rules - that they are applying the post-2005 ""No no-cost EDC"" rules. All
Boardmembers agreed that the ARRA should move forward expeditiously in order to preserve
the parkland and prevent further deterioration of the property.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the staff recommendation with further direction
to convey the entire property (Marina Village and North Housing complex) to the City.
The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4
ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o noes, o abstentions.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith spoke about various topics including clean-up problems, liquefaction, and the surplus
housing at former North Housing.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed a side trip tour he had of Fort Ord with Mr. Michael Houlimard, and
compared the Fort Ord redevelopment project with the Alameda Point project. Member deHaan
explained that at Fort Ord, they are only redeveloping 8 acres (out of 28,000 acres) of disturbed
land. The rest became one habitat or recreation areas. He expressed how successful the Fort Ord
project is because they focused on their award-winning Community Reuse Plan, which, to their
benefit, had many special interests, including the University of California and two major retail
operations, one lifestyle and one big box. Even the Army itself wanted to retain some of the
property. Member deHaan further explained that Fort Ord's reuse authority could dissolve in the
next two years, since their cash flow has put them into a positive, quite contrary to where
Alameda Point is. Fort Ord has also begun building a phase of housing units around the existing
golf course (there will be 12,000 residential units total); there is one hotel and another bid for a
Ritz Carlton. Member deHaan attributes the success of the Fort Ord project to their focus on the
community reuse plan, their expedient manner and that they did not veer from that plan.
Member Matarrese suggested agendizing a report of the Fort Ord project as an update and called
to move the agenda.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:34 by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The meeting convened at 9:34 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 7, 2007.
2-B. Approve Two-Year Sublease for Architectural Glass & Aluminum at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Proposed Sale and Disposition of Surplus Property at Alameda Point, Itemized
as Five Rapid Electric Rectifiers, One Industrial Oven, Two Abrasive Blasters, and One
Abar Ipson IVD Machine, for a Total Amount of $84,000 in Revenue to the ARRA.
2-D. Approval to Provide Building 24 for No Cost for Alameda Boys & Girls Club Fundraiser.
Member deHaan pulled Item 2-D. Approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar was
motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the
following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions. Member Gilmore abstained from Item
2-A (Aug. 7 Minutes), as she was absent from that meeting.
Member deHaan asked why Item 2-D was brought before the ARRA on short notice. Debbie
Potter, Base Reuse & Community Development Manager, explained that the ARRA Board meets
once a month, and often times requests come through, particularly from non-profits or small
businesses that might not be familiar with the steps and processes necessary to approve their
requests. Their lack of familiarity that any requests would have to come to the board is the
reason for the short notice, and as soon as the request was received, it was placed on the agenda.
Ms. Potter further explained that it is not unusual to take and approve requests for fee-waivers
from non-profits; but in the past, this was done administratively, and just more recently, the
policy was to bring these requests to the ARRA.
Member deHaan motioned to approve Item 2-D, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by
the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Master Project Schedule Prepared by SCC
Alameda Point LLC",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,2,"Debbie Potter summarized the Alameda Point project to date and introduced Pat Keliher,
SunCal's Project Manager, to present the Master Project Schedule. The ENA calls for the master
plan to be prepared initially, and updated on a quarterly basis and presented to the ARRA. The
first update of the Master Schedule will be presented in the Dec. - Jan. timeframe.
Pat Keliher walked through highlights of the Project Master Schedule and explained that the
schedule was put together in a logical manner, first with the public planning process, which
clearly is important to set the stage for a final development plan. The first community meeting
will be scheduled very soon, and consist of land, site, design constraints and charettes. The
second stage of public process includes returning back to the public to present a development
concept. Mr. Keliher emphasized how critical it is to remain consistent and continue the public
process throughout the project timeline. Next critical item on the schedule is the traffic, location,
and infrastructure impacts of the VA issue and scope of their project. Mr. Keliher stated that
SunCal began early on working together with the VA.
The next key phase is the Planning and Entitlement phase where the development concept,
public amenities, adaptive reuse, and historic district issues are refined. Mr. Keliher explained
that SunCal has met with members of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS),
and with Chris Buckley and Richard Rutter, to evaluate buildings and uses in the historic district.
SunCal's next key item on the schedule is the submittal of the Entitlement Application in March
2008. Mr. Keliher did not go into detail with the balance of schedule which includes the DA,
DDA, CAA, Business Plan, MOA, Tidelands Trust Agreement, etc. He further explained that the
NEPA & CEQA processes can't start until project description is in place. He expressed how
critical the next three to six months are and that SunCal is committed to meeting the milestones.
Member Matarrese focused on the zoning issue and asked when Zoning will be adopted. He
requested that the Zoning is put under the control of the City and is locked so that the City
protects itself. Debbie Potter explained that the city anticipates the entitlement package
(Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment,
Zoning amendment, and Master Plan) will all come together as one package, and, pursuant to the
ENA allows this in July 2009. One of the mandatory milestones is the submittal of an initial
entitlement package by May 2008, which will trigger the CEQA process. David Brandt, Deputy
Executive Director, explained that the milestone is not an actual exchange, just a framework
agreement of how we'll proceed. Chair Johnson requested it is made clear that the milestone is a
framework. Mr. Brandt further explained that once the CEQA process is complete, the City
Council can then adopt Zoning, but legally it cannot be done without an environmental review
process. Member Matarrese expressed concern about zoning changes and that any changes have
to go thru the City so that it is not left open if the Navy decides to change the rules. Debbie
Potter explained that the intent is to execute all required documents simultaneously such that we
protect our existing position as our role as the trustee. Ms. Potter assured that she will discuss
with the Planning dept. about whether or not the existing EIR done for the General Plan
Amendment is sufficient, or whether we will have to undertake additional environmental review.
An update on this issue will be reported at the Oct. ARRA meeting.
Member deHaan asked if the Navy will be able to meet the timeline, and if not, what the
consequences are. David Brandt stated that we cannot guarantee that the Navy will perform and
we cannot control third party delay. Debbie Potter stated that we should be hearing from the
Navy about the schedule in the next day or so.
Member Gilmore commented that our sense of urgency does not match the Navy's and that they
need to come to the realization that time is money for everyone involved. The costs of",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,3,"construction, infrastructure, etc. makes the project difficult, and the factors that affect our
developer, and would affect any developer, affects the Navy as well.
Pat Keliher stated that SunCal has a tactical strategy to deal with the Navy - that they have a
streamlined process of sharing technical studies and other documents that underpin the CEQA &
NEPA processes; but that there are still a lot of unknowns, including whether there will be
funding for clean-up. Chair Johnson compared the Oaknoll site to Alameda, that Oaknoll was a
clean site without Tidelands Trust issues. Mr. Keliher reiterated SunCal's commitment to the
challenging, but necessary task, stating that SunCal would work with the City of Alameda, their
consultants and lobbyists, to deal with the changing climate ahead that may affect things moving
forward.
The Board thanked Mr. Keliher and SunCal for presenting the Master Project Schedule and
expressed it was a job well done.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Vice Chair Tam presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Chair Johnson arrived at 7:52 p.m. (during item 3-B).
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 4, 2007.
2-B. Approve Three-Year Sublease for Sustainable Technologies at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Waiver of License Fee for Alameda Unified School District Student Activities.
2-D. Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident
Management, Inc. to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes, o noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation by Friends of the Wildlife Refuge - An Update of Their Activities at
Alameda Point.
A power point presentation was made by Leora Feeney, Chair of FAWR, and Eli Saddler,
Conservation Director for Golden Gate Audubon, to update the Board and community on the
resources at the Alameda proposed Wildlife Refuge to ensure the resources are protected while
transfer negotiations continue. Eli Saddler thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the
update and encouraged them to do whatever possible to protect the resource. He expressed
concern about the current plans that have been proposed that are within the area that was
considered in the Biological Opinion. They want to continue to work cooperatively with the VA
to protect the resource and honor the veterans at the same time.
Member deHaan commented on how nice it is to look at the maturity of the site, referring to the
photos included in the presentation. He asked if the resources, the ponds and wildlife area, are
getting to a better state. Ms. Feeney replied that the ponds are wonderful, but that Alameda Point
and the breakwater is vulnerable. She discussed the increase in the Pelican numbers, and the use
of the willows by migratory birds, including a hawk, one winter. Ms. Feeney also mentioned
how far the recognition of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge stretches, explaining that two college
students chose the Refuge site for their graduate work, one from Los Angeles, and the other from",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,2,"Toronto, Canada. Also, the first magazine issued by the National Wildlife Refuge Association
included an segment on Alameda and asked the FAWR to be an affiliate of theirs.
Member deHaan asked how successful the mating pairs have been up to this point. Ms. Feeney
summarized the progress of the lease tern colony, explaining that Alameda has the sixth largest
colony in the world, but that we are isolated from the other colonies (most in Southern Ca).
Member Matarrese really enjoyed the pictures included in the presentation and appreciates the
fragility of the ecosystem of the site. He discussed another upcoming item on the Agenda, Site
1, an uncharacterized waste pit which is adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge, and the importance of
addressing the clean-up issues and how it relates to the water-borne life of the refuge. Mr.
Saddler added that once construction begins at Alameda Point, it would inevitably impact how
the clean-up is managed.
Vice Chair Tam asked if they have seen some of the latest conceptual plans from the VA. Mr.
Saddler said that he and Ms. Feeney met with the VA and were able to see three versions of
proposed plans. They were concerned that the new concepts proposes the area between the
proposed Golf course and the refuge site as a buffer zone, but also expressed their desire to stay
engaged with the VA and keep things in perspective as to what's best for Alameda, what's best
for the Veterans and what's best for the wildlife. Member Matarrese clarified that the VA is a
fed-to-fed transfer, and not the Alameda development.
Member deHaan recommended the Board receive periodic updates of the VA's proposals and
requested a briefing. Member Matarrese agreed and asked whether the updates can be obtained
officially. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that there is no official proposal
available yet from the VA. Member Matarrese requested that when there is an official proposal,
he would like the Board to see it. The Board agreed.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - oral report
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, reported that the VA is
currently engaged in informal Section 7 consultations with the USF&W and have a potential site
plan, but there are no additional details beyond that.
Member deHaan asked what role the ARRA would have, since the property would be a fed-to-
fed transfer. Ms. Potter explained that it has been properly characterized as a fed-to-fed transfer,
and, as such, the VA would work directly with the Navy on the conveyance of the property. This
opportunity is one that the VA would be interested in exploring because the property would be
conveyed to them for free; different than the conveyance we're involved in for the remainder of
the property. ARRA and staff would be involved at an informal level, but because the
development is adjacent, we have interest in some issues like the submerged lands adjacent to
dry lands. Ms Potter stated that staff would continue to consult and work with the VA, the
USF&W, and the Navy, but key issues are hammered out at the federal level.
Member deHaan discussed his understanding that the USF&W made a claim to property, said
that they would be the governing body and provide financially, but they could not fulfill their
commitment and this is why the Navy is looking for a different avenue. Ms. Potter explained
that, in the USF&W's own words, ""the status of refuge is at an impasse""; that they are unable to
reconcile their issues with the Navy regarding a fed-to-fed transfer, and that their key concern is
future liability regarding environmental cleanup. They have not perfected the transfer
arrangement, so the Navy has been in discussions with the VA in lieu of USF&W. Because
there are endangered species on the property, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,3,"consultation to make sure that whatever the VA does, they cannot harm the endangered species.
Ms. Potter clarified that the USF&W are not pursuing ownership of the property at this time and
that if the Navy goes forward with the property transfer to the VA, the Navy will retain clean-up
obligations for the property.
Vice Chair Tam questioned what SunCal's follow-up with the VA has been to this point
regarding the site, if their dialogue with the VA includes potential alternative sites. Ms Potter
responded that SunCal has had one additional follow-up meeting with the VA and that SunCal is
aware of their need ultimately, and that this issue is a key item on SunCal's Project Master
Schedule.
It is noted that Chair Johnson arrived at this point in the discussion (7:52 p.m.).
Ms. Potter gave her update on SunCal, including that the first two community meetings have
been scheduled, the first on 10/24 at Mastick Senior Center. The agenda for this meeting
includes introduction of SunCal and their partners to the community, framing the project and
their approach to the project, and site constraints. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled on
12/12 at the O'club to solicit feedback from community regarding the range of development
scenarios, and their key focus to continue surveying property and preparing to do sampling - the
technical work to support the land-planning effort.
Member Matarrese asked if we're on track with zoning issues. Ms. Potter explained that she has
prepared an off-agenda report discussing that the status of the public trust designation protects us
more than locking in zoning, and recommends that staff not do anything ahead of the entitlement
process. FM requested that this item be agendized.
Chair Johnson asked if the mortgage crisis is a risk to SunCal. Ms. Potter said that SunCal has
reassured they are not impacted by that crisis. Chair Johnson wants to be kept updated of
SunCal's activities regarding the project.
This report was for information only. No motion or action was required.
3-C. Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation
Restoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area).
Ms. Potter summarized a letter sent to the EPA requesting additional investigative work be done
at IR Site 1. She explained that trenching activities are concluded at the site and key concerns
identified: no intact drums were found, but the waste had low-level radioactivity. The cost of
digging up and hauling off the landfill is very expensive so staff's recommendation is to take the
Navy's approach outlined in their draft ROD to cap the landfill.
Member Matarrese had deep concerns about the radioactive and hazardous waste and
groundwater migration of the contaminants out of the landfill. Dr. Peter Russell addressed the
concerns and explained that the landfill was closed and no waste put in for 50 years, with a good
deal of monitoring and investigation, it appears not to be any migration of contents. Dr. Russell
further explained that 11 trenches were dug and there were no drums or containers whatsoever,
except for one broken which was consistent with the Navy's supposition that what drums were
placed in there were crushed. It is unlikely that there are many, if any, drums. Another issue
was the volume of waste - the Navy over-estimated by a factor of two or three, so accordingly,
they inflated the cost by two or three. Their feasibility study did not consider radioactivity in
landfill, and now that there is, we do not have an argument that the cost for the removal is at the
Navy's estimate.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,4,"Member Matarrese motioned to send a letter that is policy in nature requesting that the
Navy excavate and remove the contents of the radioactive contaminated landfill, and
dispense with institutional controls on surrounding properties that are deemed to be
cleaned.
The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, o noes, and 0 abstentions.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
The RAB met regularly and again on Sept. 28th to discuss six alternatives for the draft feasibility
study for IR Site 32. Their recommendation endorses a chemical oxidation and institutional
controls for that site to alleviate groundwater contaminations.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese was contacted by a member of boating industry regarding development in
Jack London Square that will displace their annual boat show in 2009. The representatives are
interested in another venue for the boat show and are looking at Alameda Point. Member
Matarrese expressed that this would be a great thing to pursue a boat show of that magnitude,
and that it would be an economic boom for our city. He requested a report when/if this can be
done.
Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said that ARRA staff has been in discussions with the
representatives of the boat show and will update the Board with information.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Have Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 3, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of October 16, 2007.
2-C. Approve a Five-Year Sublease with the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) at Alameda
Point.
2-D. Approve a Ground Lease at No Cost for Kids Chalk Art Project.
2-E. Approve General Release and Compromise Agreement with The Reuse People of America,
Inc.
Member deHaan pulled Item 2-B. (Oct. 16 Minutes) for discussion. The balance of the
Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member
Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, o abstentions.
Item 2-B: Member deHaan pulled this item because he wanted to clarify the action that occurred
at the Special Meeting of Oct. 16th. He specifically addressed the item discussed at this meeting,
Item 3-A. Establish an Alameda Point Advisory Task Force. The discussion that he understood
was that one member from each of the boards and commissions plus the Housing Commission
would be selected and that the individuals would report back to their commissions and boards.
At the recommendation of the Executive Director, Debra Kurita, Member Gilmore suggested we
hold approval of Item 2-B until Item 3-C (AP Advisory Task Force: Clarification of Roles and
Responsibilities) is discussed. Member deHaan said since he placed Item 3-C on the agenda, he
would pull it if Item 2-B is clarified.
Chair Johnson stated that 3-C should not be pulled and should be discussed because more
direction needs to be provided. Member Matarrese agreed with member deHaan to correct the
minutes first, and agreed with Chair Johnson to keep Item 3-C on the agenda for discussion.
Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, further clarified that in addition to the Housing
Commission member, that there would be a representative from the Climate Protection Task
Force as well. All Board members agreed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,2,"Chair Johnson recommended keeping Item 3-C on the agenda, affirmed by staff that it would be
helpful for further discussion.
Vice Chair Tam requested a correction of the 10/16 minutes to reflect that it was Member
Matarrese who seconded the motion, and not her.
Member Gilmore motioned for approval of Item 2-B with the following corrections: to
include full complement of the Boards and Commissions with one member representing his
or her Board/Commission's position and reporting back to that board or commission, and
this includes the Climate Protection Task Force and Housing Commission representatives;
and to reflect that Member Matarrese seconded the motion, and not Vice Chair Tam. The
motion was seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
There were two speakers on Item 2-D (Kids Chalk Art Project), Mark Wagner, who thanked the
Board for waiving the fee for the use of Alameda Point for the project; and Trish Spencer,
President of the Alameda PTA Council, who gave a brief explanation of the project, which
spotlights art and brings art to the students and families of Alameda schools. They plan to draw
the largest chalk project in the world.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Proclamation for Ken Hansen, Community Co-Chair of the FISCA RAB.
Chair Johnson proclaimed Nov. 7, 2007 as Ken Hansen Day in the City of Alameda, and
presented the Proclamation to Mr. Hansen. Mr. Jim Sweeney also presented Mr. Hansen with a
Letter of Appreciation from the US Navy, signed by Laura Duchnak, Director of the BRAC
Program Office. Mr. Mike Quillen of ERM presented a letter of appreciation and recognition to
the ARRA Board to honor Mr. Hansen for his contribution and achievements to the ARRA and
the City of Alameda.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief project update:
SunCal held its first community meeting on October 24th. There were over 200 members of the
community in attendance. SunCal introduced their team and gave a presentation which focused
on various constraints and work they have done so far. There were various technical consultants
on hand, and following the formal remarks, there was opportunity for the community to talk on a
one-on-one basis with the consultants. SunCal is preparing for a briefing with the Navy on 11/15
regarding their progress to date. The next meeting is scheduled on 12/13 at the O'Club at 6:30
p.m.
At the 10/16 Special ARRA meeting, there was a request that staff prepare a stakeholder process
for involving the folks that have special interest in Alameda Point. An off-agenda regarding this
item was distributed end of last week.
Chair Johnson asked if we are meeting the benchmarks in the process and keeping the timeline.
Ms Potter replied that so far, yes, and that SunCal has two mandatory milestones on the near
horizon, the first is March '08 when they have to submit a development concept, along with
infrastructure plan and business plan; and the next milestone is May '08 where they are required
to submit their draft master plan application.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,3,"from the Planning Dept.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, wanted clarification on the task force member role
to represent their board or commission.
Member Matarrese discussed that the memo distributed by Andrew Thomas regarding the roles
and responsibilities accurately captured the intent and purpose - which was to increase the
familiarity with all the boards and commissions of the plan when it's finished, so they are not
seeing it for the first time. The task force is responsible for two things: 1) report back, and 2)
advise SunCal on positions their boards and commissions have taken. It is a very clean and
efficient way of getting to the point of having the boards and commissions versed in the plan as it
is presented to them.
Vice Chair Tam expressed her concerns about the members of the task force being asked to
refrain from speaking at the Oct. 24th meeting until their roles and responsibilities were clarified.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,4,"She explained that it is not her view that we should deprive the advisory boardmembers of their
constitutional right to speak out or constrain them from sharing their views and experience. We
chose these people because of their expertise and their broad experience in Alameda and outside
- and that these boards and commissions have chosen them to help lead the discussion. It's
appropriate for them, once they're on the advisory task force, to interact productively with
SunCal to ask questions, and not simply be a human tape recorder.
Member Matarrese stated that his explanation of the roles of the task force members does not
preclude them from asking questions. Member deHaan added that the liaison to SunCal should
be staff, and not the task force member.
Andrew Thomas clarified that the advisory task force is an ad-hoc group, not a separate formal
commission. The task force meetings are the public workshop meetings - everything is publicly
noticed, there are no plans to hold ""task force"" meetings separate from the workshops.
Speaker, Bill Smith, spoke about various topics.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese was not able to attend the last RAB meeting and did not have a report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan requested further discussion on the Coast Guard Housing Surplus process be
placed on the next Regular ARRA agenda.
Member Matarrese also requested a report on all the fields at Coast Guard Housing. Deputy
Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that an off-agenda is in preparation regarding this issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
James Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 7, 2007.
Member Gilmore clarified that the following correction should be made in the minutes
regarding Item 3-C. Alameda Point Advisory Task Force: that the Board and Commission
representatives would not only convey their Board or Commission's position to SunCal at
the public meetings, but also, they could speak for themselves if they made it clear that they
were speaking for themselves and not on behalf of their Board or Commission. Member
Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar with the clarification made by
Member Gilmore, seconded by member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation by the Veterans Affairs on the VA Project Development Plans at
Alameda Point.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Claude
Hutchison, Director of Asset Enterprise Management, and Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset Manager,
of the VA who made a powerpoint presentation.
Mr. Hutchison gave a summary profile of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. The VA is the second
largest agency within the Federal system, second only to the Department of Defense (DOD).
They are essentially the alumni association for the DOD and serve the needs and requirements of
24 million living Americans who served our country. They have an annual budget projected to
be $84 billion. There are three major areas of responsibilities and activities: 1) Veterans Health
Administration - to serve the medical needs and requirements of those enrolled in the VA
system. Currently 8 million enrollees, with 155 acute care hospitals around the country and 900
outpatient clinics, 2) Veterans Benefit Administration - financial services ranging from real
estate loans to insurance and educational requirements, and 3) National Cemetery Administration
- runs 125 national shrines as final internment for Veterans.
Their hope is to place a combination of all three at Alameda Point - a significant, multi-purpose
outpatient clinic, offices for the Veterans Benefit Administration, and an above-ground
columbarium.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,2,"The entire land mass that the VA hopes to have transferred to them by the Navy is approximately
597 acres. They envision developing about 113 acres concentrated in the north east area of the
property. Mr. Hutchison further explained that the VA is still in negotiations with the USF&W
because of the Lease Tern and California Brown Pelican whose habitat is within the area they
hope to control.
Mr. Jaynes concluded the presentation with an overview of the property area, stating that
Alameda Point is strategically located to serve the Veterans of the greater Bay Area, and in
addition, it is ideally and centrally located to serve the Veterans of northern Alameda County.
He indicated on the map which area was the federal-to-federal parcel at the far west end of
Alameda Point. It primarily consists of what was the airfield and landfill for NAS. The parcel
does not include the Northwest Territories, which is still going to the City of Alameda. It also
does not include any submerged lands. The 579-acre parcel runs from the west side of hangar
row all the way down to the bay, and follows the perimeter shoreline all the way around the tip.
When it gets to the Northwest Territories, it comes back down to hangar row.
Mr. Jaynes presented the VA's site development plan which they have been working on for 18
months. They plan to only develop 113 acres, and the remaining 466 acres will be left
undeveloped. The VA's planned development is a circumference of about 1900 feet from the
Lease Tern colony, based on the closest structure on hangar row, to assure the protection of the
Lease Tern and the Brown Pelican and so the VA and these endangered species can co-exist on
the site.
Their plans include an outpatient clinic on the far east end which would replace the two facilities
currently in Oakland. The clinic will be approximately 80-90,000 sq. ft. and be a full-service
ambulatory care clinic which will not have any beds. The VA would like to develop an above-
ground cemetery on the 50+ acres on the far west end of the parcel. There are approximately
390,000 Veterans in the greater Bay Area that would use the cemetery services, and for the
clinic, they envision that it would serve approximately 7,000 of the 40,000 northern Alameda
County Veterans. Also included in the clinic would be a small clinic that is run by the Air Force
(David Grant Medical Center) that would treat active duty and active duty dependents in the Bay
Area. The third development plan includes land reserved for ""enhanced use"", a public-private
partnership where a developer comes in and builds a facility on under-utilized VA land. The VA
was envisioning as their enhanced use partner a civilian in-patient hospital, which they believe is
a compatible need with their outpatient clinic.
Chair Johnson asked how many in-patient hospital beds the VA would anticipate be used by
Veterans. Mr. Jaynes replied that approximately 10 - 20 would be used for Veterans. Member
Matarrese mentioned that there is already a hospital here in Alameda that can be partnered with
the VA. Mr. Jaynes explained that the plans for the civilian hospital are still conceptual. The
enhanced use plans also include two structures for medical office buildings, which would house
civilian doctors and administration. Also included is a small nature center which the VA would
build to house fish and wildlife services and employees on the site to work with the Lease Terns,
as well as EBRPD rangers if an agreement can be worked out with them. The VA would also
build a bay trail on the property, limited to the far west side of the parcel in order to protect the
endangered species.
Mr. Jaynes presented the VA's timeline for development. They have been in consultation with
USF&W for almost two years, and are currently in negotiations with the Navy to develop an
MOU which will lay out the transfer terms. It is the VA and Navy's plan that the final transfer,
including the transfer documents, will be complete by Fall of 2008. In addition, the VA is
currently conducting a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment
for transfer, and a biological assessment. They have plans to do a NEPA environmental impact
study which is funded and ready to go.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,3,"Mr. Jaynes explained the VA's two major construction projects, one for the clinic, one for the
cemetery. Both projects are congressionally authorized and appropriated, if approved for the
budget, design will begin on the clinic in 2010, with construction completed by spring/summer
2012. The columbarium is on the same timeline, but could be phased and opened sooner. The
enhanced use lease is in the concept application process and will go to the Secretary of the VA in
the spring, and if approved, the enhanced use process will begin in late spring and work toward
having a partner and open in 2012.
Member Tam thanked Mr. Jaynes and Mr. Hutchison for the presentation and had some
questions: 1) on the discussions the VA has had with the Navy regarding environmental clean-up
costs, 2) has there been progress in the VA's coordination with SunCal, and 3) the VA's role and
relationship with the Alameda Healthcare District.
Mr. Hutchison explained that the VA has had ongoing dialogue with the Alameda District
hospital and will be meeting with the new CEO tomorrow morning (Dec. 6) to continue that
dialogue and they are very interested in maintaining that relationship with the Alameda
Healthcare District. He further explained that the VA has issued an RFP for outpatient services,
and that the Alameda Healthcare District has responded. A final determination has not yet been
made.
As a response to Member Tam's first question about the clean-up costs, Mr. Hutchison discussed
that the Navy is responsible for clean-up. The VA's MOU with the Navy will set forth the terms
and conditions that outline the requirements of the Navy to bring it up to appropriate commercial
standards. The VA does not want to take on liability for contamination over which they had no
control. The inter-agency transfer will set forth clearly the Navy's requirements with no dispute
between the VA and the Navy as to those requirements. He emphasized that the VA has a
significant due diligence process.
Member Tam mentioned that since the VA is the alumni association to the Navy, that they may
have a stronger tie to them than the ARRA does. Mr. Hutchison explained that the Navy is well
aware of their obligation and is prepared to live up to it.
Mr. Jaynes discussed the coordination efforts with SunCal, stating that most of their
communication with SunCal since their last meeting with them has been through Debbie Potter.
He said that he has been playing phone-tag with the project manager for SunCal, Pat Keliher, but
will continue to strive to communicate with them to make sure their plans are in coordination
with the ARRA's. Mr. Hutchison thanked Member Tam for being the catalyst to bringing
SunCal and the VA together in a joint cooperation going forward.
Chair Johnson wanted to clarify whether residential units were still part of the VA's development
plan. Mr. Hutchison confirmed that residential units were never part of their plan. Member
deHaan discussed his concerns about the budget appropriations and the VA's cost for their
development plans. Mr. Hutchison stated that the budget approval cycle was FY '10 and the
dollar amount for the hospital is in the $50M range, and considerably less for the columbarium.
They are confident that their proposal will be well received by congress and the Dept. of
Veteran's Affairs. Member deHaan also asked about the status of their coordination efforts with
SunCal. Mr. Hutchison reaffirmed what Mr. Jaynes had said about their intent to maintain
dialogue with SunCal.
Chair Johnson called the speakers, first Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the
Lease Terns and transportation issues. The next speaker, Mark Chandler, Commissioner of the
Alameda County Veterans Affairs Commission, spoke in support of the VA's plan to develop the
outpatient clinic at Alameda Point. He discussed the status quo of Veterans having to travel to
Martinez, Travis AFB, and Mare Island for healthcare.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,4,"Another speaker, Leora Feeney, Boardmember of the Golden Gate Audubon Society and Friends
of the Alameda Wildlife (FAWR), stated her appreciation for the cordiality given by the VA
regarding their proposal. She stated that all of them support Veterans in a huge way, and also
support wildlife and open space and opportunities for our children to experience nature. Ms.
Feeney discussed her concerns on specific issues of the VA presentation, mainly the ""circle""
concept (1900 feet distance from the nearest hangar). She's concerned that any development that
places a barrier between the Lease Tern colony and the water would present a problem, as the
Lease Terns do not fly over buildings. They would not be able to get to the water to forage. Ms.
Feeney's other strong objection is the VA's unwillingness to accept the water around the refuge,
together with the land, including the island breakwater where the brown pelicans roost. If the VA
accepts the land and develops that northern portion of it, it seems reasonable, but there is a need
to protect the foraging waters of the Lease Terns and the island breakwater for those endangered
species. She emphasized the need for accountability to protect these things, and stated that if the
USF&W does not have it, nor the VA, she's concerned about who will accept the responsibility.
Chair Johnson asked the VA what their intention is with regard to Ms. Feeney's concerns about
the water. Mr. Hutchison stated that it is envisioned that the water area would go to the master
developer, SunCal, and that the VA has never coveted that water. Deputy Executive Director,
David Brandt, corrected Mr. Hutchison's statement by explaining that the area is Tidelands
property, so it would be the ARRA or the City that would hold title to the property, and not
SunCal.
The next speaker was Eli Saddler, Conservation Director for the Golden Gate Audubon Society.
He discussed further the concerns of Ms. Feeney, and agreed that they support the VA. He
would like them to go forward with their development plans, but just not at the Alameda Point
site. One of their primary concerns is that the VA's plan contradicts the existing biological
opinion that was developed when USF&W originally requested the property as a refuge. There
was a minimum acreage required for the California Lease Tern which was the entire area
sectioned off, not including the northern-most portion, which was going to the City and was to be
developed as a buffer zone. The VA's plans would be inside the buffer zone of the area that has
already been designated as the critical habitat for the species. They do not think that it is
biologically defensible to draw a circle of 1900 feet around the colony, it is unrealistic to think
that the birds will obey and stay in that circle. They use the whole area, including areas where
the VA has already planned to put their hospital. Mr. Saddler also further discussed his concern
about the water area, which was also included in the original biological opinion, which stated
that the area to the south was needed for foraging for both species. He emphasized their concern
about whether the VA's plan was biologically feasible without very serious mitigation that
would have to be done ahead of any construction, mitigation meaning having an alternative site
for the Lease Terns to go to, and there was no discussion of this mitigation. It is their
understanding that the USF&W would have some kind of requirement that would include
mitigation. The problem is, however, that there really is no other location for the Lease Terns to
go. The VA plans could potentially jeopardize Alameda's very significant Lease Tern colony.
Mr. Saddler also discussed his concerns about the VA's NEPA process and whether it is legally
defensible. The transfer of the parcel is for a purpose, and if there is a new biological opinion
that contradicts a pre-existing one, this places the VA's development plans on shaky ground,
legally.
Chair Johnson thanked all the speakers and Mr. Hutchison for coming in from Washington, DC
to make the VA's presentation. Member deHaan asked whether the VA looked at other
opportunities at Alameda Point. Mr. Hutchison clarified that their discussions have been with
the Navy, and that the Navy came to them, unable to agree to terms with the USF&W and was
going to dispose of the property, and asked whether the VA had an interest in taking it over.
Their relationship to the parcel is a direct result of the Navy soliciting their interest. Mr. Jaynes
added that the VA had looked at the older Coast Guard Housing property, but felt that it wasn't
large enough to satisfy the VA's needs for a medical clinic as well as a columbarium.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,5,"Member Matarrese expressed his appreciation for the presentation as it quelled various rumors
about the VA's interest in the property. It's good for the ARRA and for the public to hear a
presentation live from officials of the VA. Member Matarrese asked if they would take back
with them a couple considerations: 1) that he does not share their optimism regarding the Navy's
commitment to do clean-up. He asked that they have the same demands as the ARRA does
regarding clean-up, and to accept the land clean, especially if it would be the final resting place
for our Veterans, and 2) explore to the maximum the opportunity to work with the Alameda
Healthcare District. A competing private hospital would be to the detriment of the hospital that
Alameda taxpayers support.
Member deHaan requested that the Alameda Healthcare District make a presentation to the
ARRA regarding their interest in the VA project. Chair Johnson stated that they will invite the
Alameda Healthcare District to make a presentation to the ARRA when they are ready to do so.
3-B. Update on the Former Coast Guard Housing Property.
Debbie Potter gave an update on the North Housing parcel, specifically on the temporary license
agreement/lease for estuary park, the exploration of a possible short-term leasing program, and
the screening process underway for the homeless accommodation and public benefit conveyance.
Staff has been working with the Navy on the short-term lease for estuary park, some sticking
points involve environmental remediation, but a short term lease agreement is planned to be
brought back to the ARRA in January '08. Staff determined that it was not feasible to have a
short-term leasing program for the surplus units. Regarding the screening process, on Nov. 5,
the Navy published their notice of surplus property in the Federal register, which triggered the
ARRA's obligation to notify the public that the property is available for screening and we are
currently in the middle of the process. There is a public information workshop scheduled for
tomorrow (Dec. 6) to brief interested parties on the screening process, and to take them on a tour
of the property. Notices of Interest (NOI) for both the homeless accommodation and the public
benefit conveyance will be due to the City on February 29, 2008. Those notices will be
evaluated working with HUD and the Navy, and ultimately we will go through a public process
of amending the Community Reuse Plan to reflect the accommodations and public benefit
conveyances that may result from this process.
3-C. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.
Debbie Potter gave an update on the Alameda Point project. A meeting with the Navy originally
scheduled to take place in November was rescheduled to December 12th The next SunCal
community meeting is scheduled on December 13th at the O'Club at 6:30 p.m, with another
public meeting scheduled on January 30, 2008.
There was one speaker, Bill Smith.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese will attend the meeting tomorrow (12/6) and will have a report in January.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,6,"6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-01-02,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:33 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 5, 2007.
2-B. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Agreement with Russell Resources for
Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point for 12 Months in an Amount not to
exceed $117,500.
2-C. Approve Sublease for American Bus Repair, LLC at Alameda Point.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Quarterly Update of Project Master
Schedule Prepared by SCC Alameda Point LLC.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a quick update of
Alameda Point activities. On 12/12, SunCal met with the Navy to discuss their due diligence and
progress on the project. On 12/13, SunCal conducted their second community meeting with over
200 community residents and business people in attendance. The community members
participated in small workgroups and identified pros and cons of two broadly defined concepts
for Alameda Point. SunCal will take the information and feedback from this meeting to put to
use for the next community meeting. Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Project
Manager for the Alameda Point Project, to give the first quarterly update of the Project Master
Schedule.
Mr. Keliher summarized past public meetings, explaining that the public would like more
specific feedback on multiple planning concepts. SunCal has aggregated most of the information
and feedback and will present this to staff. To update the master schedule -- originally, SunCal's
pretense was that they would move forward with the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC),
but over the course of the last few months, due to constraints, the PDC is not feasible. SunCal
has communicated this to the Navy, to the public, and to staff, and the Project Master Schedule
has been updated. Most of schedule triggers project description, which is still in process and will
take several more months, but does not affect the two-year ENA period. Mr. Keliher discussed
that the City hired an independent peer review team to evaluate SunCal's results and this peer",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-01-02,2,"review will continue over the next 12-18 months. The conclusion of the peer review thus far is
that there are issues for which SunCal will discuss the mitigation techniques. SunCal has met
with multiple federal agencies, and their meeting with the Navy was to introduce them to the
concept that the PDC didn't work, and, as the existing term sheet is predicated on the PDC,
SunCal will come back to the Navy in Jan-Feb with an outline on their strategy. Mr. Keliher
explained that the Alameda Point project is very complex, but nothing that is insurmountable.
Member deHaan expressed concern with economics of the project and what issues SunCal was
anticipating will be covered at the next public meeting. Mr. Keliher stated that it is SunCal's job
to present more specifics on each of the different planning concepts, i.e., Measure A, non-
measure A, or a hybrid of these two, etc.
Member deHaan stated that the loose ends and driving force was the transportation issue. Mr.
Keliher agreed that the transportation issue was a trigger and that it would take several years and
a
lot of different agencies involved to tie up this loose end. Member deHaan commented that the
public meetings were well-received.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese attended the 12/6/07 meeting and the main agenda item was a summary
handout of 2007 activities and a look-forward to 2008 with remediation at Alameda Point. He
provided the handout, ""Environmental Progress at Alameda Point"" and requested that it be
provided to ARRA members and posted on the City's website. He requested that the map
identifying the sites be included with the handout.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-01-02.pdf