{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-01-05", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n2-A\nWednesday, January 5, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 5:46 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A.\nRecommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Agreement with LFR, Inc. For\nenvironmental consulting services at Alameda Point in the amount of $175,130 for a total\nagreement amount of $249,000.\n2-B.\nRecommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute sublease(s) at Alameda\nPoint.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was\nseconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 0.\n3.\nPRESENTATION\n3-A.\nPresentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.\nNone.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n1\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-01-05", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A. Oral report from APAC.\nChair Lee Perez noted that they did not hold a business meeting during December, although a\nvery nice social gathering was held. He noted that there was no discussion, and that the next\nmeeting would be held on January 19, 2005. He noted that they would decide how to carry out\nthe ARRA's wishes at that time.\nMember DeHaan noted that while he was not part of the decision made at the last ARRA\nmeeting, he supported that decision. He was concerned that the process took much longer than\nanyone could have anticipated, and that when he was Chair of EDC, he ensured that they were up\nto speed on Alameda Point issues. He recalled several team members (Al Clooney and Dan\nMeyers) who had passed away during this process.\nMayor Johnson noted that she and Member Daysog had been members of the BRAG as well.\nChair Perez noted that three active former BRAG members sat on the City Council, and that\nhoped that their dedication would reach Sacramento and Washington, D.C. He noted that it had\nbeen an honor to serve in this capacity, and acknowledged that change was necessary.\n5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nThere was no report.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese recalled previous discussions to bring the redevelopment of the Point to the\nmainstream consciousness of Alameda. He noted that the very light turnout at the ARRA\nmeetings did not meet that goal. He requested that the regular meeting time be changed to 7:30\np.m. in order to encourage more community participation. He noted that the closed session could\nbe held before the regular meeting.\nMayor Johnson suggested agendizing that item for the next meeting, and noted that a 7:00 start\ntime could be tried. A special meeting would be held on Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.\nMember DeHaan requested an update on the Consultant Agreement to be placed on the next\nagenda.\nChair Perez did not anticipate that there would be any further amendments to current consultant\ncontracts. He added that they could make an updated budget presentation at the next regular\nmeeting. They had anticipated some changes to the consultant contracts, and that they did not\n2\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-01-05", "page": 3, "text": "impact their contingency or any other line items contained in the ARRA-led predevelopment\nbudget.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\n8-A. Property:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA, Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nAnnouncement of Action Taken in Closed Session: The ARRA received a briefing\nfrom the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.\n9. ADJOURNMENT\nMayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 6:11 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Frankel\nARRA Secretary\n3\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-01-20", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n2-B\nThursday, January 20, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 8:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nPublic Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only\nThere were no speaker slips.\n3.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n3-A. Amending Resolution No. 010 establishing rules and procedures for Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority meetings by amending the starting time of regular meetings from 5:30 p.m.\nto 7:00 p.m. (requested by Boardmember Matarrese)\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was\nseconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 0.\nMember Matarrese noted that this item is approved with the intent to increase public participation.\n4.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\n4-A. Property:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and Navy\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe ARRA received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nMayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:21 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Frankel,\nARRA Secretary\n1\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\1-20-05 Special.ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-02-02", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n2-A\nWednesday, February 2, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:16 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent:\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A.\nApproval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 3, 2004.\n2-B.\nApproval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 18, 2004.\n2-C. Resolution Supporting a Joint Local / State Effort to Speed Up Redevelopment of\nCalifornia's Closed Military Bases.\nChair Johnson motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was\nseconded by Member DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -3; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 1 by Member Matarrese.\n3.\nPRESENTATION\n3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.\nStephen Proud gave monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance\nprocess. At the January Meeting with the Navy we developed a Master Timeline with the Navy\nand got an update on the status of some of the selective restoration sites. We discussed the first\nphase footprint and key IR sites that are contained within the footprint and the ARRA made a\npresentation at that meeting of our revised infrastructure costs for Alameda Point. We gave the\nNavy an update of the status of the Trust exchange with the State Lands Commission. We let\nthem know that the legislation as been approved for the Trust exchange and that we had drafted a\ndraft exchange agreement that we had shared with State Lands Commission staff. Our legal\ncounsel had submitted it to their legal counsel and that we were currently awaiting comments.\nElizabeth Johnson, one of our planners at AP made a presentation to the historic advisory board\non Jan 7th where we gave them some background information on the historic district and the\nactions that were underway relative to the historic district.\n1\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-02-02", "page": 2, "text": "On\nSaturday,\nJan\n22nd we had a tour with the Alameda Architectural Preservation. The group\ncame out and we toured around the base, specifically focusing on historic preservation issues. We\nhad an excellent turn out with well over 15 members attending, along with Page and Turnbull.\nTwo upcoming community workshops: the first one is March 3rd with the planning board; at that\none we will focus largely on land use options, a continuing dialogue of what's happening at our\nfirst two community workshops. The next would be on Mar 23rd with the transportation\ncommission where we would focus more on transportation related issues obviously and\nspecifically on some of the discussions that we had at our last workshop for estuary crossings.\nOur goal is take all of those transit options and try and funnel them down to a couple that we can\nreally study in depth as we move forward thru the process. So this is the continuing dialogue on\nthat issue with the transportation commission, again hosted with the APAC as well.\nMember DeHaan asked how we are planning to get feedback from the Historic Preservation\nSociety on the tour and if they be part of the community workshop. Stephen Proud replied that\nthey were invited to participate in those meetings as an opportunity to make sure their comments\ncame through the workshop format and they were also invited to solicit and give us comments\nindependent of those workshops.\nMember Matarrese requested minutes of that meeting to give us at least some indication of what\nthey might have said.\nStephen Proud began discussions on the ARRA led predevelopment budget: The ARRA has $3.5\nmillion that is available to lead the predevelopment planning period. There was a slight increase on\nNavy conveyance and on the land use planning side. At this point through the process we've spent\n@ 45% of what we had budgeted and we' re about 12 mo. into an 18 mo. process.\nCouncilmember DeHaan asked if we were anticipating any contract amendments. Stephen Proud\nreplied that at this point, we don't expect there would be any contract amendments. We do have a\ncouple of contracts that have expirations date that were set for Mar 31st but we don't see\nanything on the horizon that looks like it would result in one of our consultant contracts going up\nin any extraordinary way in the near future.\nMember DeHaan asked what the completion date is on the project. Stephen replied that this\nbudget was programmed to take us thru June 30th of 2005 -- an 18 month ARRA led pre\ndevelopment period, from the beginning of 04 to the middle of 05.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A. Oral report from APAC\nThere were no representatives from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there were no representatives\nfrom APAC. Chair Johnson stated there was an APAC sub-committee meeting this evening\ntherefore there were no members available for an oral report.\n2\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-02-02", "page": 3, "text": "5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nRAB met on January 6, 2005. Key topics were the Seaplane Lagoon; site 17. The draft feasibility\nstudy was presented. A timeline for implementing remediation for that site in 2006 was discussed.\nThis would be the actual remediation of contaminants in the Seaplane Lagoon. An update of\naction on the Miller School and Woodstock Child Care Center, site 30 and the remediation\nactivities that went on there. New RAB member, Joan Conrad, voted in. Next meeting is February\n3, 2005 at 6:30 pm.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Mataresse thanked staff for all the work done, particularly with getting community\nworkshops together and stated that he's very interested in the Transportation workshop on March\n23rd, acknowledging that having a transportation infrastructure in place before a development\nincreases the value of the land because it's there and not an encumbrance. A meeting on February\n18, 2005 is schedule to reactivate our liaison committee with AC Transit Propose to discuss\ntransportation with a BART liaison committee.\nChair Johnson suggests our liaison committee should schedule a meeting with BART, which may\nneed council approval. States BART is a big issue for Alameda.\nStephen Proud stated that the logistics had not been worked out yet, but mentioned that it would\nbe hosted as a joint workshop with either one of the boards or commissions and the APAC but\nthat the 4th workshop would be a more general public forum. There was nothing formal discussed\nfor a 5th workshop. Member DeHaan would like to see the Economic Development Commission\nhost the 5th meeting. Chair Johnson stated that discussions regarding EDC hosting had already\nbeen done. Chair Johnson asked if there was a public outreach planned. Prior ones very well\nattended. Great benefit that these workshops are broadcasted live.\n9. ADJOURNMENT\nMayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 7:51 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Frankel\nARRA Secretary\n3\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\02-02-05 Regular.ARRAminutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-03-02", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, March 2, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.\n5-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent:\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A.\nApproval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 5, 2005.\n2-B.\nApproval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 20, 2005.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was\nseconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 0.\n3.\nPRESENTATION\n3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning\nStephen Proud gave a monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance\nprocess. He stated that on February 16th, a proposal was made to the Navy for the acquisition of\nAlameda Point. Discussions with the Navy included a presentation about conveyance strategy\nand approach for moving Alameda Point forward. The proposal to the Navy was very well\nreceived and they expressed appreciation for the proposal. A series of follow-up meetings have\nbeen scheduled to discuss environmental and economic issues, and parcel identification suitable\nfor transfer and phasing.\nNext land planning workshop is scheduled for March 3rd This workshop has been broken up into\ntwo pieces: the March 3rd meeting is co-hosted by the planning board and APAC and will focus\non land use alternatives that have been developed over the first series of public workshops. The\nsecond part of this workshop will be a separate meeting on the March 23rd with the\nTransportation Commission, which will focus on transportation alternatives. The goal is to come\nback to the ARRA in April with a full briefing on the 2 workshops. A good solid attendance is\nexpected as was experienced in the past. Andrew Thomas from the planning department\ncontinued to discuss benefits of having the workshops broken into two separate meetings. He\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-03-02", "page": 2, "text": "stated the community expressed a desire to receive information in smaller quantities rather than\ntwo much, too fast.\nMr. Thomas discussed estuary crossing and long term planning, not only for Alameda Point but\nfor the entire City of Alameda and that we will be presenting to the public the various\ntransportation possibilities: light rail connections to the Fruitvale BART along the regional\noutline alignment to the aerial tram from the west end to the west Oakland BART and a number\nof different options.\nChair Johnson mentioned the interagency liaison committee with AC Transit and talked about\ntransportation solutions. She would like to look at a system that uses the same tracks that are\ncurrently in place in Alameda. She stated that this would dramatically cut down the costs of that\nkind of transportation solution.\nAndrew Thomas agreed and explained the difference between heavy gauge and light gauge rail.\nThe new street car systems are typically on light gauge, yet the old belt line was a heavy gauge\nsystem. The issues with the solution of using the existing rails are on the Oakland side and the\nability to cross the Union Pacific lines at grade. The PUC rarely grants those kinds of approvals.\nChair Johnson pointed out that no matter what gauge rail system was used, that issue would have\nto be dealt with. She believed the rail system alternative that should be looked at should be\nfocused on using the existing infrastructure in place and we should not spend a lot of money and\ntime looking at rail systems that don't fit our current infrastructure. Chair Johnson asked if there\nwere any costs estimates using the current rail and gauge.\nAndrew Thomas stated that not all costs estimates were available but did have good costs\nestimates for what it would take to put in a new system. Chair Johnson would like a cost estimate\nusing existing rails and Andrew Thomas explained the issues relating to costs savings for\nexisting rail system and creating cars that are designed for light gauge rail.\nChair Johnson mentioned that the San Francisco Muni system is using old cars and they work\nvery well. She also suggested that a transportation solution be in place even before base\ndevelopment starts, and would like to find a solution for transportation throughout Alameda over\nto Fruitvale BART.\nAndrew Thomas agreed. He stated that they were meeting with the City of Oakland and the Port\nof Oakland to get an idea on how these agencies feel about this, as well as with AC Transit and\nBART. He mentioned that if an at-grade crossing of the Union Pacific Lines was obtainable,\nthen that option would look very good. If not, then we'd be looking at building an elevated\nsystem or diving under. Member Matarrese suggested comparing what Caltrans has done\nbetween San Francisco and San Jose. Chair Johnson suggested some sort of shuttle system get\nstarted now.\nMember Matarrese mentioned two items that were brought up at the AC Transit meeting. One\nwas electric buses which would make our fuel be AP&T instead of some oil company, similar to\ngolf carts.\n2", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-03-02", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Johnson stated that the information given at the workshops should include the fact that\nsome solutions are never going to happen because they are so expensive, or at least not in the\nforeseeable future. There are some solutions that are feasible long term, but we're looking at\nshort term feasible solutions that can get started even before base development starts.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n4-A.\nRecommendation to approve a 10-year lease agreement with Nelson's Marine for\nBuilding 167.\nNanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager introduced David Jaber, regional vice-\npresident of PM Realty Group. Mr. Jaber presented a short analysis regarding the Nelson's\nMarine issue. Mr. Jaber recommends the lease and supports the market rent for Nelson's\nMarine. He also analyzed the $34M difference that was presented by the boat yard attorney at\nthe last ARRA board meeting.\nMr. Jaber gave a brief background and discussed how the fair market value of the Nelson's\nMarine rent was determined: Nelson's Marine was one of the first groups out to Alameda Point,\nwith a 5 year lease which contained a clause that allowed for renewal at 90% of fair market\nvalue. This survey was performed by Dunn Associates and that helped determine the fair market\nvalue. The fair market value component provided by Dunn & Associates was on the base rent.\nWhen the rent survey was done, the focus was on four things: 1) review of the lease and the\nleases, 2) site coverage ratio, 3) the gross rent and net rent conversion, 4) the review of the rent\nper square foot.\nMr. Jaber gave a review of the leases, comparing the costs between two boat yard leases for\ntaxes, insurance, and maintenance. He analyzed the numbers -- using a 20 yr. term to help\nexplain the differential -- which showed that the $34M loss, proposed by the opposing four\nboatyards, was not supported. His analysis further justified that the net lease proposed comes\nout with the appropriate rate. Mr. Jaber concluded that the fair market value -- the 31.5 % based\nupon the 90% of fair market value -- is appropriate for the lease. He included percentage rent,\nthe ability to prosper as the tenant prospers, sublease recapture, which doesn't allow the tenant to\nprofit by bringing in subtenants, rental increases, 2% every year, justified considering there is the\nability to reduce the land space by 75,000 sq feet, and lastly a 10 yr term is very appropriate.\nMr. Jaber recommended the Nelson lease for approval.\nMayor Johnson called a few speakers. Richard Lyons of Wendell, Rosen, Black and Dean spoke\non behalf of Nelson's Marine and addressed the legal aspects of the lease, explaining Mr.\nNelson's rights to extend the lease, right of first negotiation and the price for that right, and the\ncontractual obligation on the part of the City and Mr. Nelson to abide by determination of the\nappraiser regarding the lease term. He requested that the two leases be approved.\nCarl Nelson, president of Nelson's Marine thanked Mr. Jaber and Mr. Lyons and looks forward\nto having his business here for at least another 10 years.\n3", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-03-02", "page": 4, "text": "Peter Lindh, representing the four boat yards came up to discuss the validity of the $34 million\nshortfall that his clients projected if the Nelson's Marine lease is approved. He stated that the\n$34M was based on the principles involved and that the actual lease terms themselves make the\nshortfall about $36M.\nMr. Lindh explained that there were two specific flaws to the PM Realty (Mr. Jaber's )\nargument. The first was that the two boatyards used in Mr. Jaber's analysis are not comparable\n(triple net versus gross analysis); it's not fair market value. The second flaw is the .45 cents that\nNelson's is paying per square foot per month on maintenance. He stated the amount as\ninaccurate and reiterated that the Nelson rate is not fair market value.\nHe discussed the cost of having a fixed rate - is $190,000 to the City of Alameda and stated that\nthe only adjustment that PM has suggested in their counter proposal is reducing the lease term\nfrom 20 yr to 10 yrs. Mr. Lindh concluded and urged the Board, as a fiscal responsibility, to\nrequire PM Realty to reevaluate and come up with a proposal that is more consistent with\neconomic reality and fair market value.\nChair Johnson asked if the City is going to lose money on this lease. Nanette Banks, Finance\nand Administration Division Manager, Development Services, explained that the Nelson's lease\nrenewal was brought to the ARRA governing body for approval and the four boat yard attorney\nraised questions about a $34M loss if we went forward with this lease. The ARRA Board\ndirected PM Realty and Development Services to research this issue. Ms. Banks further\nexplained that there hasn't been a counter offer, nor would there be, because according to the\nNelson's lease, they have the first right to negotiate at 90% fair market value and the appraisal\nwas to establish the fair market value.\nChair Johnson and Boardmembers discussed the issue of the Nelson's lease creating some unfair\nadvantage to other boat yards, and the original concern of the $34M loss. There were no counter\nproposals to the Nelson's lease.\nThe Board approved the staff recommendation.\nStaff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-0;\nAbstentions-0\n4-B.\nRecommendation to approve a 5-year lease, with a possible (5-year) options with\nNelson's Marine for 400 linear feet of Pier 1.\nNo speaker slips. Recommendation approved and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4;\nNoes-0; Abstentions -0.\n4", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-03-02", "page": 5, "text": "5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A. Oral report from APAC.\nLee Perez, APAC Chair, spoke about the transition from the APAC to the various Boards and\nCommissions which will be presented next month. Also, members of APAC have been working\nvery hard with staff in terms of planning the various public meetings, specifically the workshops\nof March 3rd and 23rd. He expects a successful meeting.\n5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nFebruary 3rd was the last meeting. The next meeting has been rescheduled to March 14th from\nMarch 3rd to accommodate the workshop. Three main items were discussed: 1) Remediation on\nOU5, Coast Guard North housing. The final plan was due on February 18th, heading for a record\nof determination and then implementation later this year. 2) Sites 6,7,8,9 by Encinal High School\n- preliminary scope of work is out and final comments are due this month. Hope to proceed with\nthat in May 2005. 3) Discussion about location of some nuclear propulsion work and general\nradiological materials and disposal out at the site in the Northwest Territory. A survey called the\nHistorical Radiological Survey Assessment is being formulated so that they know exactly what\nhappened in that location. A lot of material is put out at these meetings and the coordination of\nthese activities is something the public should be very interested in.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nOne speaker, Bill Smith came up and spoke on various topics.\n7.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9. ADJOURNMENT\nMayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:28 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Frankel\nARRA Secretary\n5", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n5-B\nWednesday, April 6, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Vice Mayor Gilmore presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent:\nBeverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 2, 2005.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was\nseconded by Doug DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 1.\n3.\nPRESENTATION\n3-A. Presentation on the March 3rd and March 23rd Community Workshops regarding\nTransportation and the Preliminary Development Concept\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, gave an overview of the planning process for Alameda\nPoint and the transportation planning process with presentations to follow. The consultant team\nwas also present for the first time at an ARRA Board meeting. Mr. Thomas updated Members of\nthe four major community workshops - that they've been very well attended. The Alameda Point\nLand Use team has also had a number of briefings with the Planning Board, Transportation\nCommission and other Boards and Commissions. There are two more major workshops planned,\nthe next one is scheduled for Saturday, May 7th, with the final community workshop in early\nJune. The plans are taking shape. For the next couple of workshops, the plans will be refined\nwith input from the community (both the transportation and the land use plans).\nThe March 3rd land use workshop will be rebroadcast on local cable channel 15 on April 7th, and\nthe March 23rd transportation workshop on April 14th.\nWalter Rask and Jim Adams from Roma (Land Use consultants) were present, as well as\nMatthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers Transportation consultants) to give respective\npresentations.\n1\nG: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-06", "page": 2, "text": "Walter Rask: Our agenda for this evening is two parts. The first part is to give an overview of\nthe preliminary development concept including the next steps. Part 2 - Fehr and Peers will be\npresenting an overview of the transportation strategy focusing largely on the off base\ntransportation issues having to do with capacity of tubes and bridges and the major street\nnetwork. We'll be doing more work later internally on the base itself and their presentation will\nconclude with discussion of the next steps in that process.\nLand Use Slide Presentation\nMr. Rask presented the history of the Reuse Plan the ARRA adopted in 1996, which set forward\na basic framework for development not only of Alameda Point but also of the FISC and Annex\nproperties on the East side of Main Street. He discussed that we are only dealing with the area\nwest of Main Street. In 2003, the City Council adopted an amendment to the General Plan that\nrefined the Reuse Plan for mostly for the areas west of Main although there was a small area on\nthe northeast of Main and this set the basic framework for redevelopment of the base and the\ntargets for build out, the framework for the larger transportation system and perhaps most\nimportantly it set forth seven goals for redevelopment of the base: 1) to seamlessly integrate\nAlameda Point with the rest of the community, 2) that Alameda become a vibrant new\nneighborhood with a variety of uses in it; 3) to maximize the waterfront accessibility, 4) to\ndeemphasize the auto and to make new development compatible with the transportation capacity\nthat is available, and 5) to insure economic development, 6) provide a mixed use environment\nand finally, 7) to promote neighborhood centers.\nMr. Rask discussed the challenges, including contractual commitments, large Historic district\narea, ground water contamination, the Tidelands Trust places restrictions on the use of lands\nunder state tidelands and specifically excludes housing, the Wildlife Refuge, the green area, as\nthe effect of constraining development on the blocks between the western boundary and\nMonarch Street, the 100 year flood area has to be mitigated either by raising the ground or\nproviding some kind of a sea wall, young bay mud poses problems of structural stability because\nof the danger of liquefaction in earthquake events. There is also a whole gamut of regulatory\nagencies that have a say on these matters. The plan as it currently stands has two major aspects.\nThe first is what we refer to as the framework plan that fixes the location and character of the\nmajor streets and open spaces on the base and also identifies opportunities for certain civic\nfunctions. The land use plan is the second half of the two part preliminary development concept.\nMr. Rask discussed the community concerns about Measure A, the Historic areas, etc. He stated\nthat the next steps in the planning process is to refine the plan and respond to the major issues\nthat have come up in the last workshop. One is a desire to more closely examine the notion of\nneighborhood centers as the general plan calls for. More generally to address neighborhood\ncharacter issues. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit enhancements are a similar theme. At the next\nworkshop they will present some refinements, as well as new information on alternatives, and\nthen the refined transportation plan. Mr. Rask stated that the final workshop in June will be to\nactually present the preliminary development concept and the transportation plan with the intent\nis to bring it to the ARRA board in July.\nTransportation Presentation\n2\nG: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-06", "page": 3, "text": "Matthew Ridgway and Michael Keeling from Fehr and Peers gave the transportation\npresentation. (Both the entire presentations are available for review and are on file with the\nARRA Secretary)\nMr. Ridgway gave an overview of the transportation strategy that has been developed and\ndiscussed some of the major components for sustainable transportation, including land use\nstrategy, employment and retail, residential and retail, and to discourage auto use.\nThe\npresentation included a menu of options and the challenges that go along with those options.\nThere was much discussion about the Tubes getting more constrained and congested from the\ndevelopment within the region and Oakland. Mr. Ridgway presented some ideas about how to\nminimize the impact on the tube.\nThe initial transportation strategy includes the use of ECO passes - the cost of purchasing ECO\npasses will be built into the homeowner's association fees for anybody who lives at Alameda\nPoint. It will be built into the fees that are part of the employment component of Alameda Point\nas well.\nThe plan also includes shuttle buses, enhanced ferry services to include bike stations, car share\nprograms, multi modal transit center, onsite transportation coordinator (a person who organizes\nthe car pools and van pools, makes sure the shuttles are operating efficiently) etc.\nThe presentation also included BART and AC Transit options/route alternatives as well as a light\nrail option (Cybertran).\nIn June, the transportation options will be moved on to a more detailed evaluation and the next\nsteps include two major components: 1) continue to look at the long term transit options and 2)\ntake the short terms transit options that we've talked about and look at them with much more\ndetail so that we have something that is ready to construct on opening day of the project.\nAnother point, according to the MTC, in terms of land use densities to support transit, Alameda\nwould be considered suburban - rural, the density that you are talking about would fit into that\ncategory, which in their mind would be something that in terms of regional funding you would\nbe very low on the list to compute for regional funding\nMember Gilmore thanked Mr. Ridgway and commented that the presentation was very\ninformative \"if somewhat sobering.\" Member Gilmore called several speakers:\nfirst speaker, Helen Sause, made comments on the community workshops she's attended, stating\nthat the transportation system being developed is very critical. She discussed the need to find\npartners with the rest of Alameda, not just with Alameda Point, and to engage the rest of\nAlameda.\nSecond speaker, Neil Sinclair of Cybertran, commented on the light rail option and stated that he\nanticipates being here in Alameda and continuing their development.\n3\nG: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-06", "page": 4, "text": "Third speaker, Diane Lichenstein, APAC Chair, commented on the tremendous amount of work\nand effort put into the community workshops and the preliminary development concept (PDC).\nEmphasized continued dialogue with community.\nMember Gilmore opened the item for discussion. Member Mataresse thanked staff and APAC\nfor hosting the community workshops with the boards and commissions, etc. and appreciates the\nsummaries of the meetings. He discussed the use of electric buses and liked the idea of the\nduplex shop houses in the historic buildings. Has one regret regarding \"the Wall\" and\ncommented on the speed limit being dropped along Ralph Appezzato Pkwy.\nMember deHaan: Stated his appreciation for everything that's gone forward and particularly\ntransportation, probably the most important segment. Had some concerns about the ferry service,\nthat it should service Oakland as well. He stated he liked the idea of the ECO Pass but had\nconcerns about how the fees are paid. He slso liked the idea of the tram. He stated that the\nrealism is that the ferry system, the bus systems and some other rapid bus system is the solution.\nMember Daysog: Stated he was excited about the ECO pass and the BART shuttle alternative.\nStated that the transportation solution for Alameda Point is really the transportation solution for\nthe City of Alameda.\nMember Gilmore: Excellent presentation with an incredible amount of information in great\ndetail yet very easy to understand. Agreed with Member Daysog that whatever transit solution\nthat we end up with is a transit solution for the entire island and not just for Alameda Point, and\nthat it needed to be in place yesterday. She made a specific comment about the potential light rail\nconnection from Alameda Point to the Fruitvale BART station. Stated that we can't lose sight of\nthe need for connections going off the island, but given our future developments - an \"across\nisland\" transit corridor as well which has the potential of taking people out of their cars as they\ngo from one end of the island to the other and generating more tax revenue for the city.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A. Oral report from APAC.\nAPAC Chair Lee Perez commented on the tremendous amount of data received during this\nevening's presentation. He thanked staff and the experts for their wonderful job of drawing in\ncitizens. Following the board's instructions, the APAC spent considerable amount of time\ndiscussing what could replace the APAC. He mentioned the letter which was sent to the board by\nAPAC and hope that they will give it serious consideration. Mentioned the need of citizens'\ninput.\nVice Mayor Gilmore thanked and congratulated the APAC as well as staff for the incredible\noutreach that was done because it has really shown in the increased attendance at the last several\n4\nG: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-06", "page": 5, "text": "meetings. The APAC worked very hard to get the word out and it was nice to see the result and\nto have a reasoned dialogued among all the citizens of Alameda.\n5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese had nothing to report as he was unable to attend the last RAB meeting due to\nillness. He stated he would be unable to attend the next meeting as well due to a special City\nCouncil meeting being held at the same time. He will provide the secretary with the minutes of\nthe two meetings, so that they may be included in the packet.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nOne speaker, Bill Smith spoke on various topics .\n7.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT\nVice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the open session meeting at 9:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Frankel\nARRA Secretary\n5\nG: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-19", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, April 19, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 6:11 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nPublic Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only.\nThere were no speaker slips.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A.\nStudy Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget\nActing Executive Director, Bill Norton, gave a brief overview about the work session on the\nARRA Budget and introduced Development Services Director, Leslie Little, who introduced\nstaff : Nanette Banks, Jennifer Ott, and Stephen Proud.\nLeslie Little gave a powerpoint presentation on the Budget Planning for Alameda Point. The\npresentation focused on transition planning and preparation for the development of Alameda\nPoint. The information presented expresses the existing conditions in the current ARRA\nbudget and also the implications of some of the decisions that have been made during current\nnegotiations. Ms. Little discussed two options to consider: 1) how to transition in the event\nthat the developer (APCP) elects to proceed with the development of Alameda Point and, 2)\nhow to transition if APCP chooses NOT to proceed.\nMs. Little discussed the first scenarios (APCP proceeding), including the Alameda Point\nBond, and that the activities that are currently being paid from it would transfer as direct cost\nto the developer; approximately 18 months. Other responsibilities would also shift to the\ndeveloper, leasing and property maintenance activities, other financials responsibilities like\nproject related tax increments, and current debt obligation.\nThe second option was discussed (APCP electing not to proceed). Ms Little noted that this\nissue is a \"structural deficiency\" in the ARRA Budget. She stated that there are expenditures\nthat are greater than the revenues at this point. She explained that if the developer doesn't\nelect to proceed, the key issues moving forward are: the Alameda Point Bond will be\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-19", "page": 2, "text": "exhausted some time around Sept and October; there are a number of deferred costs, or\ncapital costs, that are expected would be part of the developer's pro forma; and the debt\npayments that began to come due in 2006. Also included in the presentation was the current\nARRA staff load on the existing ARRA budget.\nMs. Little continued to discuss some challenges to the ARRA budget. She explained that by\n2006 and 7 we will have spent down our fund balance and, by 2008, we won't have enough\nto balance our budget. She discussed how a large part of the ARRA budget is contributed to\nmunicipal services -- about 1/2 of what we take in annually, $10M in revenue. She stated that\nthe presentation is intended to start the conversation about the need to either increase\ngeneral fund revenue opportunities to tackle some of the costs, or decrease the general fund\nexpenditures out at Alameda Point because we don't have the resources to continue to\nsupport them.\nMs. Little discussed the current pro forma and its assumptions regarding new public\nrevenues, primarily in property tax pass thru, the sales taxes, property transfer taxes, etc.\nwith the sale of the homes (new development) = revenues coming into the general fund.\nShe concluded the presentation, summarizing that staff is preparing for APCP to move\nforward in the next two months and that we will need to transition quickly negotiate a\ndisposition and development agreement at 18 months and move into an implementation\nmode; subsequently, if APCP does not move forward, there are implications regarding\ndealing with long term costs over time. Ms. Little mentioned a subsequent \"phase 2\" ARRA\nBudget workshop.\nCouncilmember de Haan expressed concern with the Navy's inability to fulfill the\ncommitment to the 18 mos. transition period. Stephen Proud addressed his concern by\nexplaining that we are trying to expedite the time line as much as possible, to the extent that\nthe Navy would be able to make the property available to us sooner. He discussed various\nissues on the timeline that we (ARRA) have to accomplish, specifically the environmental\nreview process.\nBoardmembers and staff discussed general leasing issues/opportunities at Alameda Point,\nwith Chair Johnson mentioning activities to attract film productions.\nMember Matarrese expressed concern about the \"structural problem\" of the ARRA Budget,\nstating that perhaps we' ve set the system up for failure - and that we may be providing\nservices that we simply cannot afford given our leasing capability. Leslie Little addressed\nhis concern by explaining that once there is a DDA, the actual costs that are being born by\nthe budget now, would have to be reduced significantly, specifically the municipal services.\nMember Gilmore asked about insurance expenses. Leslie Little explained that the tenants\nthemselves carry liability insurance as part of their lease requirement.\nMember Daysog initiated discussion about the proposed mitigation where the general fund\nreduces dependency on the ARRA and absorbs 1.8million dollars in expenses. The\nmunicipal services funding resources was discussed.\n2", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-19", "page": 3, "text": "Member Gilmore summarized the challenges of reducing the amount of expenditures in the\nARRA budget, by allowing the general fund to absorb those expenditures. Bill Norton\nreplied that staff provided the ARRA Board with this detail to see the impact of the changes\non the general fund.\n3-B.\nRecommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Direct P.M. Realty, Acting as\nProperty Manager, to Enter Into a Contract with Courtney Giampolini to Waterproof\nCity Hall West (Building One) in an Amount not to Exceed $966,650\nNanette Banks provided photos of the extensive water damage in various locations of\nBuilding 1(City Hall West). Building 1, like other buildings at Alameda Point, have\nproblems that require a lot of work, specifically asbestos remediation, lead paint and\nwaterproofing, roof and other capital upgrades. Ms. Banks introduced Rick Jones,\nconstruction manager from PM Realty Group.\nAfter Mr. Jones explained the problems with the buildings, he and Chair Johnson had\nconversation about the contractor bidding process and if this process was approved by the\nARRA. Ms. Banks explained that in an exhibit to the property management agreement with\nPM Realty, PM Realty is allowed to use their own process for selecting contractors for us.\nMember deHaan, as well as the other boardmembers, expressed concern about the almost\n$1M.cost for the building repair. Member Gilmore questioned the long-term \"guarantees\" to\nthis costly solution. She wanted reassurance that the same problems don't resurface in a\nyear, after spending $1M. Mr. Jones explained that there is a 10 yr warranty, which is pretty\nstandard in the industry.\nStaff and boardmembers discussed other options for housing City Staff. Bill Norton\nexplained that there is no other space available for city staff to move into. There was also\nfurther discussion about window replacements. Mr. Jones stated that 40 windows would be\nreplaced, and the other 200 are aluminum.\nMember Daysog stated that the ARRA is in a fiscal crises and as such non-life threatening\nprojects, like waterproofing, I believe need to be delayed especially if the professional\nopinion is that delay doesn't result in significant cost increases to the project.\nChair Johnson agreed with Member Daysog but stated that (Building 1) is a workplace for\nour workers and we can't have our city employees working in those conditions. She also\nrequested a briefing for discussion of the ARRA board the bidding process and requirements.\nThe Board approved the staff recommendation.\nStaff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-1\n(Daysog); Abstentions-0\n3", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-04-19", "page": 4, "text": "4. ADJOURNMENT\nChair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nG: \\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES\\2005\\April 19.Special ARRA minutes.doc\n4", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nThursday, May 12, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-B\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nPublic Comment on Agenda Items Only.\nOne speaker slip from Helen Sause, however she was not present.\n3.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n4.\nPRESENTATION\n4-A. Presentation/Update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.\nStephen Proud briefed the Board on two different fronts: 1) the Navy conveyance process, and 2)\nthe land planning effort. A proposal has been submitted to the Navy - they wrote a counter\nproposal that we responded to which is under consideration right now with them. We're hoping\nto have an official response from the Navy by the end of June and that coincides with Alameda\nCommunity Partners election to proceed timeline.\nMr. Proud gave a brief overview of the May 7, 2005 Community Meeting, commenting that staff\nis pleased with the community's continued participation in the planning process and there was a\nlot of good feedback. The next community workshop is June 8th at Mastick. The next step would\nbe to come back to the ARRA board with a copy of the preliminary development concept for the\nregular July ARRA meeting.\nMember Mataresse requested that a section be included that has a summary of compliance with\nthe General Plan amendment, compliance with the Economic Development Strategic plan and\ncompliance with other relevant plans, for that preliminary development concept that will be\ncoming back in July.\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A. Provide Direction to the Acting Executive Director regarding the term of the lease\nextension for Building 613 Sublease Agreement between the ARRA and Alameda\nPoint Collaborative.\nDebbie Potter requested direction on a sublease between the ARRA and APC for building 13\nwhich is currently being used as an office to house the Red Cross. She gave a brief history of the\nlease and requested extension thru Dec 31, 2006 SO that it coincides with the overall development\nplan for Alameda Point. Several representatives from APC spoke in support of a lease extension\nuntil 2012, including Doug Biggs and Jim Franz.\nIn response to Member Matarrese regarding the time frame for development of that parcel, Bill\nNorton replied that plans are for the Navy to turn that property over to the City at the end of\n2006. Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, also noted that if we reach an agreement\nwith the Navy and the developer at the end of 2006, infrastructure and geotechnical work would\nstart in 2007\nAfter discussion from Boardmembers regarding the timing of development, Chair Johnson\nadvised that it would make more sense to have the shorter term now and consider a longer term\nwhen we know more at the end of Dec 2006, supporting staff recommendation.\nStaff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-5; Noes-0\nAbstentions-0\n5-B.\nStudy Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget\nBill Norton, acting Executive Director, introduced this item with an overview of Part 1 of the\nBudget Study Session. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented Part 2 - a\nsummary of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget - by walking the Board through the staff report. She\ndiscussed overriding issues: the pro forma and the development assumptions at Alameda Point.\nMember DeHaan raised the question regarding $1.8M that should be absorbed back into the\ngeneral fund. Bill Norton confirmed Member DeHaan's comments and advised the Board of a\nnew proposed budget for 05-06 for all city funds, including the general fund, noting that\nrevenues for different departments are down and we have accounted for this in our budget for the\nnext fiscal year.\nThere was brief discussion about the storage of surplus equipment the Navy left for the City.\nLeslie noted some plans for the surplus equipment, including an auction to raise funds. She then\ndiscussed the organizational structure for the Development Services Department, namely the\nBase Reuse and Redevelopment Division - where 4 staff members are paid from the ARRA\nBudget. Leslie discussed Building One tenants: Development occupies the entire 2nd floor; the\nAlameda Development Corporation which maintains a 2nd floor office; and a storage room for\nthe Navy's records. Public Works, Fire Prevention and Information Technology occupy the first\nfloor and balance of the building.\n2\nL:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES\\2005\\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 3, "text": "Leslie discussed the employee positions and vacancies in the department and how they fit\ntogether with the three budget categories: Community Development, ARRA, and the CIC.\nMunicipal Services funding was noted in length, with Member Daysog requesting a separate\nreport/background information on the mitigation fund.\nBill Norton advised that there are still negotiations with the developer upcoming and if the\ndeveloper exercises their notice to proceed, they will make direct cost recovery payments, until\nwe have a disposition and development agreement, to DSD and the general fund.\nMember Matarrese advised that we have to be prepared for the developer not exercising their\nright to proceed, and that if we are able to segregate general fund obligations from ARRA fund\nobligations, that would be the foundation for making a decision on anything less than the best\ncase scenario. Leslie Little concluded her presentation.\n6.\nORAL REPORTS\n6-A. Oral report from APAC.\nThere were no representatives from the APAC to give a report.\n6-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese gave a brief overview of the last RAB meeting he attended.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the\ngoverning body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\n9.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:\n9-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA, U.S. Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\n9-B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and U.S. Navy\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nAnnouncement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\n3\nL:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n4\nL:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES\\2005\\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-06-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, June 1, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-C\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A\nReport from the Acting Executive Director recommending the Approval of Subleases at\nAlameda Point.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The\nmotion was seconded by Chair Johnson and passed by the following voice vote:\nAyes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nPRESENTATION\n3-A.\nPresentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning\nSteven Proud, project manager for Alameda Point, gave a brief update on Navy Negotiations,\nfocused on two fronts: submission of the conveyance proposal to the Navy; and the public planning\nprocess. The conveyance proposal was submitted to the Navy in May and is under consideration by\nthe Navy right now. There have been meetings in support of that with some of the regulatory\nagencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and EPA. The next\nmeeting with the Navy to discuss the contents of the proposal is June 2, 2005. Mr. Proud reminded\nthe public and the Board that the next public workshop is on June 8th at the Mastick Senior Center,\nstarting at 6:30PM.\nChair Johnson thanked Mr. Proud and commented on all the positive feedback she's received from\nthe public regarding the workshops: that they appreciate all the hard work and effort and how\ninformative and helpful the presentations were.\nMr. Proud gave credit to Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, for coordinating the workshops, and\nto Irma Frankel for coordinating the public outreach, and other staff members who have worked hard\nto make sure the workshops are successful.\n1\nL:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-06-01", "page": 2, "text": "Member deHaan asked when we're expecting the Navy to respond. Mr. Proud stated that we asked\nfor a response from the Navy by June 30th, which corresponds to the date in the conditional\nacquisition agreement with Alameda Point Community Partners for there election to proceed.\n3-B. Video presentation by the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM).\nMarilyn York from the Alameda Naval Museum gave a brief (4 minutes) video presentation of the\nAlameda naval Air Museum (ANAM).\nMarilyn York and Barbara Bach were two public speakers, both requesting a long term lease with\nthe right of renewal and the same terms for the ANAM.\nMember deHaan thanked them for the effort they put in it and remarked that the video was\nextremely informative. He commended them for the effort to get the shell improvements which were\nover $700,000.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITMES\n4-A. Report authorizing the Acting Executive Director to Execute a two year lease renewal (1-\nyear with 1-year owner option) with Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) for Building\n77 at Alameda Point.\nIn response to Member deHaan's question regarding why the agreement is in front of the Board if\nit's already been signed, Bill Norton explained that the agreement has not been signed by the\nmuseum association, as they indicated they want at least a 5 year and probably a 20 year lease. So\nthey have not signed it. Mr. Norton further explained that the ANAM did have a 5 year lease.\nHowever, there were performance criteria in the lease, but they did not have the ability to perform\nover a 3 year period because they did not have time to actually occupy the structure until they got a\ncertificate of occupancy in March 2004, it's not reasonable to expect them evaluated on the\nperformance measure that they were required to. The original thought was to give them this prior\nyear plus 2 years upcoming, so that we could review the performance criteria during that period of\ntime. Mr. Norton advised, based upon some of the concerns that ANAM has, to modify the item to\nauthorize the Executive Director to enter into negotiations with ANAM for the lease, rather than\nauthorizing the existing lease agreement to be signed - enter into negotiations for a new lease.\nThere were several speakers, including the representative from Red Bridge Media, Ken Robles, who\nis partnered with Veterans Administration Archival Department in Washington, D.C. in a historical\nvideo project (video taping veterans) to keep the history alive.\nMember Matarrese motioned for staff's recommendation to enter into negotiations for a\nnew lease with ANAM. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - O.\n2\nReuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES\\2005\\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-06-01", "page": 3, "text": "5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A\nOral report from APAC.\nChair Lee Perez was not present and the ARRA Secretary read written comments from Helen Sause\nregarding her concerns on the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Chair Johnson advised that it was\nunclear whether Ms. Sause's written note were drafted with Lee Perez as the APAC oral report, or if\nshe intended them to be just public comment.\n5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese said he would have two RAB at the July 14th ARRA meeting.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body\nhas jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)\nThere was one speaker slip, Virginia Roberts, who supports Helen Sause's comments regarding\nappointing a citizens committee to assist with the Alameda Point redevelopment.\nChair Johnson noted that public involvement is always encouraged and would like people to\ncontinue to participate in the process.\n7. COMMUNICAITONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nThere was no additional communications from the Board.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nChair Johnson advised that this item was a place holder in case it was needed, but that there was no\nitem to discuss.\n9. ADJOURNMENT\nChair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n3\nL:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES\\2005\\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-07-14", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nThursday, July 14, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 6:25 p.m. with Member Gilmore presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAfter the Pledge of Allegiance Member Matarrese motioned to move the Closed Session (Item\n3-A) to the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by\nthe following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n2.\nPublic Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only\nNone.\n3.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:\n3-A. Property:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA, U.S. Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThis item was moved to the end of the agenda.\n4. PROCLAMATION\n4-A. Proclamation to members of the APAC for their dedication and unwavering commitment\nto the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nMember Gilmore addressed the audience and APAC members. She spoke about how APAC has\nhelped the community understand the challenges and issues regarding Alameda Point. Member\nGilmore then read the proclamation and handed one out to each of the APAC members.\nAPAC Chair Lee Perez thanked the ARRA Board for the opportunity to serve over the last\nseveral years - he spoke about how pleased they (the APAC) were with the response to the\nReuse Plan & the participation from the community. He also mentioned that it's been a long\nhaul over the last 12 years since they first started and they were pleased with the outcome so far.\nMember deHaan, expressed his gratitude for the leadership and dedication that Chair Perez and\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-07-14", "page": 2, "text": "all the other members of APAC contributed toward the planning efforts of Alameda Point.\nMembers Daysog, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson (who just arrived at this point) also expressed\ntheir gratitude.\n5.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n5-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of March 2, 2005.\n5-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 6, 2005.\n5-C. Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources extending the term for 90-\ndays and adding $54,000 to the budget for environmental consulting services.\n5-D. Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the approval of Subleases at\nAlameda Point.\n5-E. Recommendation to amend the approved FY 2005-2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000\nfor repairs to the Al Dewitt O'Club.\nMember Gilmore motioned to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by\nMember Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -\n0.\n6.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n6-A. Presentation of the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point\nestablishing land use goals, transportation strategy and historic preservation strategy.\nSteven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, discussed the updates on the Conveyance\nprocess with the Navy and the status of the budget. The key topic discussed was the progress\nwith planning efforts regarding the PDC and introduced the document to the Board for their\nreview.\nMr. Proud advised that there are continuing discussions with the Navy on disposal strategies and\nconstraints with the property; and that we're moving forward with the Navy regarding a conveyance\nagreement. He discussed the community meetings and the success in each of the workshops to\ntackle specific topics that helped produce this draft document (the PDC). He further discussed\nissues at Alameda Point (AP) about Navy conveyance and the land planning process.\nAndrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, focused on the Community Reuse Plan and the draft\nPDC. He discussed what the community's expectations for the development of AP and what the\nreal priorities are. He advised that the PDC was an integration of \"new\" with the \"old\"\n(Community Reuse Plan). Mr. Thomas explained the several Appendices of the PDC, which\nincluded the Transportation Strategy, specifically the Broadway/Jackson feasibility study; and\nthe Historic Preservation element.\n2", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-07-14", "page": 3, "text": "Regarding the Historic Preservation, Mr. Thomas discussed that there was a lot of community\ninvolvement with questions regarding which buildings and homes to keep and which to get rid\nof. The residential portion of the plan included 3000 new units: homes for sale and rentals.\nThere were several speakers who discussed various topics related to the PDC, including:\n- Conversion of the naval base - Measure A\n- Adequate school facilities at AP.\n- Transportation planning\n- Solar energy equipment\n- Keeping the BOQ building for Veterans or Senior Housing\n- Historic District Preservation\n- Housing for all income levels\n7.\nORAL REPORT\n7-A. Oral report from APAC.\nNo oral report.\n7-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese discussed topics from the last RAB meeting, including clean-up\nmethods, and how petroleum is being extracted. He also gave an update on the BCT activities\nand the schedule for the site management program, which lists all the clean-up activities.\n8.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNo speaker slips.\n9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting adjourned at 10:21 P.M.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n3", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-09-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, September 7, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Member Daysog presiding.\n2-B\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 19, 2005\n2-B. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to direct PM Realty Group, acting as\nProperty Manager, to enter into a contract with Manson Construction Company to dredge\nThe Alameda Point channel in an amount not to exceed $575,000.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was\nseconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 0.\n3.\nPresentation\n3-A Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.\nStephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager gave a brief update on the AP conveyance\nactivities. There is a meeting scheduled with the Navy on September 29th to discuss, and come\nto a resolution, on the \"divide' in the analysis of the value of the property. The outcome of that\nmeeting will be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting on October 5th Mr. Proud\nintroduced Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, to give an update on the Preliminary\nDevelopment Concept (PDC).\nMr. Thomas discussed staff's review of comments received from the public and from the ARRA\nBoard (of the July 14th meeting) and efforts to use this information to make revisions to the PDC.\nThe revisions include addressing and clarifying a number of issues, such as its role, its purpose,\nand the Next Steps to clarify Historic Preservation issues. The document will also be revised to\ninclude an additional appendix in response to some of the requests for more financial information\n- the financial trade offs that are embedded within the PDC. The plan is to present the revised\ndraft PDC to the ARRA Board and the public at the October 5th ARRA Board meeting.\nRevisions to the document will be in a red-lined, strikeout version so the public can very clearly\nsee where changes were made.\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-09-07", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Thomas announced that we received a $250,000 grant Metropolitan Transportation\nCommission Grant, a land planning grant to help with next phases of the planning for Alameda\nPoint, particularly around the transit center. There is also progress toward a memorandum of\nagreement with BART on a $485,000. grant, a federal earmark that was received over a year ago\nWe have been meeting with representatives from the Navy and the Local Historic Preservation\nCommunity to continue the discussion on the Historic Preservation issues that were generated by\nthe PDC, and that is in the context of the Section 106 consultation which is really a Navy lead\neffort. A briefing to discuss the PDC and the 106 consultation process with the Historical\nAdvisory Board on Alameda Point is planned for October 6th. City Staff has also been invited\nto\nattend a League of Women's Voters workshop on September 29th and November 15th\nMember Daysog called 2 speakers, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, and Neil Garcia\nSinclair of Cybertran who gave a quick update on the Cybertran/University of California/BART\ncoalition and the proposal of establishing a research center in transportation energy at Alameda\nPoint.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese was unable to attend last week's RAB meeting, so there is no report.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere was one speaker slip, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the VA,\ndevelopment at Alameda Point; and various unrelated topics as well.\n7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Daysog welcomed the new City Manager, Debra Kurita, who is also the Executive\nDirector of the ARRA, to her first ARRA meeting.\n8. ADJOURMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n2", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-09-20", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, September 20, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 11:37 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Recommendation to Approve the Fourth Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement\nbetween the City of Alameda and East Bay Municipal Utility District.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar item was passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;\nNoes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n4.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nChair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-10-05", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, October 5, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-C\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Report from the Executive Director recommending the Approval of Alameda Power &\nTelecom Sublease at Alameda Point.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was\nseconded by Tony Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Presentation of the Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development concept (PDC) - A\nPlanning Feasibility Study for the Redevelopment and Reuse of the Former Alameda Naval Air\nStation.\nAndrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the revised PDC and discussed what the major\nrevisions were, including: alternative plans approaches, various constraints affecting the layout and\ndesign, and a clarification in the executive summary that the PDC is a feasibility study, and not the\nfinal \"plan\".\nThe revised PDC also included expanded discussion regarding Measure A issues, and a good\nfoundation for a solid transportation strategy. Mr. Thomas further summarized the revisions, stating\nthat the phasing program is conceptual and there was text added to include information on civic\ncommunity type facilities, churches and plazas, etc. emphasizing that the general plan calls for these\nkinds of uses. There were a number of revisions to the Next Steps chapter, primarily the\nenvironmental review and entitlement process for the first phase should our master developer choose\nto proceed.\nChair Johnson called up the several speakers who discussed the following topics:\n- concern about the insufficiency of neighborhood centers\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-10-05", "page": 2, "text": "- a representative from AAPS requested a reuse study be included in the PDC for the historic\nbuildings\n- a representative from the APC expressed their interest in continuing to be involved in the\ndevelopment plan process\n-\na representative from Operation Dignity expressed concerns about the Board accepting the\nPDC in draft form\n- representatives from HOMES and the Sierra Club expressed their appreciation and support\nwith the progress of the PDC compared to other developments.\nMember Matarrese thanked the staff for providing the input and revisions. He agreed with the\nspeaker who mentioned that the Board should not approve a draft document; and rather, approve a\nfinal document. He would like to see more information on a green standards plan and a plan for\nsustainable communities and expressed concern about the word \"feasibility study\", afraid it might be\ndismissed because it does not \"comply\" with the PDC. He further stated that the PDC document is\nstill conceptual. Members Gilmore and Daysog agreed with Member Matarrese's statements.\nMember Daysog would like to see more information on the fiscal implications of the PDC, especially\non Phase II and Phase III.\nMember deHaan reminded folks that there was a community reuse plan prior to this PDC, which\nincluded the development of commercial and industrial spaces to maximize transportation.\nMember Matarrese motioned for Council to direct staff to simulate the comments that were made\nand produce a final document for approval. He requested the document be in red-line/strikeout\nformat so that revisions are clearly seen in the document.\nCity Manager, Debra Kurita, recommended that the draft revisions be text-only to save cost. It was\nagreed by all Boardmembers to just bring back the document at the regular ARRA Board meeting in\nNovember; there was no need to make a motion for this action.\nSteven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, clarified some points to the Board. He stated that the\nPDC is a component of the conditional acquisition agreement (CAA) that we have with APCP. Other\ncomponents include getting a conveyance agreement structure set forward with the Navy and then the\ncompletion of the preliminary development concept. Based on the timing with regards to meeting\nwith the Navy, Mr. Proud recommended the revised document be brought back at the December\nmeeting, instead of November. All Boardmembers accepted this recommendation.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nThere was no report, as Member Matarrese stated the meeting was the following day.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nBill Smith spoke about various topics.\n2", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-10-05", "page": 3, "text": "Alex McElree, Executive Director of Operation Diginity, requested the ARRA Board encourage the\nCity Council to fulfill the promise they made to Operation Dignity and to the homeless through the\nhomeless conveyance of the McCain/Feinstein Act and build the 39-Units (homes).\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n3", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-12-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, December 7, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-D\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 16, 2004\n2-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 2005\n2-C. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 1, 2005\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was\nseconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore).\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Presentation of Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).\nAndrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the \"text-only\" changes made to the July 5th Draft\nPDC. The changes were made in response to comments heard at the July and October 2005 ARRA\nBoard meetings. Mr. Thomas summarized the major changes and asked that the ARRA approve the\nchanges as well as other modifications to the text, and identify final revisions in order to bring a\nfinalized document back to the Board at its regular meeting in February 2006.\nA summary of the changes included:\n- clearer description of the purpose of the PDC, identifies it as a planning study and not a\nregulatory document without any legally binding effect.\n- there is more emphasis and clarity that the plan for Alameda Point is a mixed-use plan,\nmaintaining financial feasibility and historic preservation.\n- recommending work-live ordinance.\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-12-07", "page": 2, "text": "Changes were made in the Introduction, Land Use and the Next Steps chapters emphasizing that it is\nthe City's goal to have a sustainable environmentally sensitive development at Alameda Point. The\nNext Steps chapter outlines the key issues that are still going to require additional study, particularly\nthe compromises and trade-offs. There is more description about how the non-Measure A\nalternative will be evaluated in the EIR process; and further exploration of maintaining historical\npreservation, as well as financial possibilities surrounding the historic buildings. Also included are\nthe next steps to implementing the Transportation Strategy.\nTwo appendices, the Transportation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Financial Feasibility and Fiscal\nNeutrality (Appendix E), were also revised.\nMember Gilmore allowed the several speakers to make their statements prior to the Board making\ntheir comments. The speakers discussed various PDC-related topics, including Historic\nPreservation concerns regarding the Big Whites and the Hangars; requests for additional buildings\nidentified for Historic Preservation be placed on the HAB agenda/study list for February, and to\nrequest and Historic Preservation Master Plan and an Adaptive Reuse Study to be done soon, or as\npart of the Navy's Section 106 process. Also discussed concerns about the Seaplane Lagoon\ndevelopment encroachments and non-measure A alternatives. Consideration of Building 3 for the\nNeptune Beach Amusement Museum was discussed.\nAlameda School Board representative thanked staff and the ARRA board for including the issues of\nschool facilities in the PDC. Alternatives in Action representative discussed issues regarding the\nearly termination of their lease and the ARRA's request of them for removal of a portable building.\nMember Daysog asked what were the major changes to Appendix E (Financial Feasibility and Fiscal\nNeutrality). Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that there was clarity added\nto the language and that the financial feasibility study done for the first phase will be replicated for\nsubsequent phases. There will be a better understanding of the financial feasibility and fiscal\nneutrality questions once we are clear on the development programs. Member Daysog further\ndiscussed his concern regarding the Measure A and non-Measure A options, and Phase I revenue\ngeneration. Mr. Proud explained that projections made in the document have a built-in fiscal\nmitigation payment which will come directly from project proceeds to offset public expenditures and\npublic revenues that we collect. Member Daysog requested more detail and clarity on the property\ntaxes for use on a range of services; he also requested a better understanding on the fiscal mitigation\npayment and operational issues.\nMember deHaan addressed issues in the body of the PDC and, with the consensus of the other board\nmembers, requested several action items to be completed by staff:\n1. Expand the paragraph in the Next Steps chapter to elaborate on the Historic\nPreservation - what the Navy is doing concurrent with us on their studies.\n2.\nProvide more clarity on the commercial development plan for the 336,000 sq. ft. of\nretail and identify the commercial endeavors being pursued.\n3. Provide separate analysis (off-agenda) on the HazMat clean-up, scenario of costs\nbetween single family vs. multi family, etc. for financial feasibility.\n4. Regarding the timeline and series of studies to be completed on the Historic\n2", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-12-07", "page": 3, "text": "Preservation: Emphasize the need to get information at the earliest possible date so that\nthe information could be used in the process of developing a plan which is then\nultimately evaluated in the EIR, and NOT when the final EIR comes out.\n5. Appendix E - What would Phase I of Fiscal Mitigation payment be? And an\nexplanation of why we are not contemplating municipal services fee (like Bayport)?\n6. Continued emphasis that this \"Preliminary\" plan document is a step to a \"Final' plan.\nAll Boardmembers accepted staff recommendation to bring back a Final version of the PDC in\nFebruary 2006.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nBoardmember Matarrese reported on the RAB meeting from November because he did not attend\nthe Dec. meeting (he was attending D.A.R.E.) There was a presentation on the remediation\nstrategies for Site 27, between Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Nelson's Marine. There were a\nwide range of options (9 remediation strategies), and there was a uniform recommendation and vote\nto advise the Navy to use the most efficient and rapid remediation strategy.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nMarilyn York, Barbara Bach, and Ken Robles of the Alameda Naval Air Museum spoke about their\nproposed 10-year lease. Chair Johnson advised that they are looking forward to receiving the lease\nfor review but have not seen it come to the Board yet.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.\nBoardmember Daysog requested the Board address Gail Greeley's issues regarding Home Sweet\nHome and moving a portable building. Member Matarrese requested an off-agenda report\naddressing this same issue.\n7. ADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n3", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-12-07", "page": 4, "text": "4", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-01-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday- January 4, 2006- 6:40 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties: ARRA and Auctions by the Bay, Inc.\nUnder negotiation: Price and Terms\nStaff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. The ARRA provided directions to\nthe real property negotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:55\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItema Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJanuary 4, 2006", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-02-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday. February 1, 2006\nThe meeting convened at 7:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 4, 2006.\n2-B. Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures for Special Legal\nCounsel; Resolution Amending Resolution No. 002 Regarding the Powers and Authority\nof the General Counsel.\nTerri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out that the only difference between the City\nCouncil policy and the ARRA policy is the unlawful detainer policy.\nApproval of 2-A was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member Matarrese and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\nMember Gilmore motioned for approval of 2-B as written, with the caveats to receive a\nwritten report on unlawful detainers and revisit the policy in 6 months. The motion was\nseconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes -0;\nAbstentions - 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Presentation of the Final Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).\nAndrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, requested formal acceptance of the PDC. Acceptance of\nthe PDC represents an important step in completing some obligations made in ARRA's\nagreement with the selected master developer, APCP: complete a plan with the help of the\nAlameda community to identify the development opportunities at Alameda Point and the key\ntradeoffs and challenges.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-02-01", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\nAs described in the plan, the PDC does not represent the FINAL development plan for Alameda\nPoint. It is a planning study with the basic message that to get through an entitlement process\nand a planning process, and to actually see implementation will require some tough compromises\nand decisions that have not yet been made. The PDC clarifies that when the important decisions\nare made, all the necessary information will be available to the public and to ARRA. Important\nissues are emphasized in the Next Steps chapter. The plan for the redevelopment of Alameda\nPoint will continue to evolve as we move through the entitlement process.\nMember Daysog thanked staff for the memo provided by Darin Smith of Economic Planning\nSystems (EPS) detailing the assumptions. He requested further sources, methodologies and\nassumptions regarding information in Table 3 and in Table 4 - property taxes, assumptions in\nterms of housing values, industrial and commercial, property transfer taxes. Member Daysog\nexplained that this information would be helpful for future generations of Alamedans to track the\nfiscal health of this project.\nThere were several speakers on this item:\nBirgitt Evans - represents the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS). Thanked\nstaff and Andrew Thomas for the PDC. Discussed concerns with removal of two seaplane\nlagoon hangars (Bldgs. 11 & 12). Recommended construction of height-limited buildings to\npreserve vista for future generations.\nElizabeth Krase, AAPS - thanked Andrew Thomas. Discussed concerns regarding the timetable\nfor the Preservation and Adaptive Reuse Studies, and the potential loss of the BOQ, Big Whites,\netc.\nJoan Konrad - discussed importance of examining Measure A non-compliant alternative plan for\nAlameda Point redevelopment and safe and easy walking distance to destinations - schools,\nwork and shopping.\nDiane Lichtenstein - concerns about the constraints of Measure A. Reiterated that the PDC is\nonly a draft and wanted to emphasize the flexibility of the plans.\nHelen Sause - commended Staff and the City on the PDC, stating that the public input has been\nvaluable. Discussed priority to see the development without restrictions of Measure A. Urged\nARRA to keep flexibility in development of the PDC and keep the alternative plan that would\npermit AP to be developed in accordance with good planning principles.\nChair Johnson closed the public comment portion of this item.\nChair and Boardmembers thanked Andrew Thomas and the staff for the PDC. Member Gilmore\nwas particularly pleased with staff's response to public input and the Board's comments about\nthe Next Steps chapter. She emphasized that what's outlined in the Next Steps chapter gets\naccomplished, yet not to tie ourselves down to a specific timeline, particularly since we don't yet\nhave the property. Chair Johnson agreed, stating that it was surprising how many residents don't", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-02-01", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3\nknow that ARRA does not own the property yet. Member Matarrese repeated the notion of\nensuring ample time for dealing with Historic properties, having advanced notice for ARRA,\nPlanning, and the public - to understand what's ahead.\nMember Daysog motioned for approval of this item. The motion was seconded by Member\ndeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0\n3-B. Recommendation to Approve a 20-year Lease with the Department of Transportation\nMaritime Administration (MARAD).\nNanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager of DSD, presented the Board with the\nlease, gave an overview of MARAD, a tenant on the base since 1997, and explained that the\nlease negotiations have been going on since May 2002. The lease being presented included two\ncomponents: the lease combines the MARAD warehouse and pier uses.\nIn addition to generating, under this new lease, a proposed $1.8 M in the first two years with 3%\nincreases, MARAD is the largest electricity user in Alameda and responsible corporate citizens.\nThey' ve already spent $1M on dredging, an ARRA obligation, but MARAD put the money up\nfront. Chair Johnson discussed security fencing, possibilities of reconfiguring least intrusive\nmanner.\nMember deHaan asked whether MARAD discussed possibilities of shouldering relocation of\nHornet and the different scenarios regarding the Hornet's location. Ms Banks replied that\nMARAD couldn't make an initial investment and it is an obligation of ARRA, but that the 3%\nincrease in rent should pay for whatever decision is made. Member deHaan stated that MARAD\nshould strive to find dollars to relocate the Hornet, since it's to their benefit. Chair Johnson\nsuggested that MARAD may have better access to homeland security money.\nUnder the new lease, gross lease revenue for the first 2 years is 1.8M per year. Net is $800,000\nto ARRA Chair Johnson requested a copy of pro forma. She also emphasized an important\nattachment - Exhibit H - which outlines ARRA's obligations under the lease. Ms. Banks\nexplained that those obligations were negotiated down from the standard lease.\nMember deHaan stated that MARAD is one of the best tenants at Alameda Point, but is\nconcerned about the 20 year cost to maintain the operation, and that they're not an asset for the\nambience of the development. Member Matarrese doesn't have a problem with MARAD being\nhere, recognizing that it's a multiple-use development; there is some industrial and commercial\nuse.\nChair Johnson expressed concern about a provision, in the MARAD lease, relating to Trident.\nShe questioned why they were intertwined, and why there is not separate, employer liability\ninsurance.\nTerri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, explained that insurance is something that MARAD\nand the Federal government can't get and it's in our interest to have this insurance in place.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-02-01", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4\nMike Hampen, PM Realty Group, further explained that liability insurance of piers is required\nwhether there is a port manager or not. Ms. Banks said that the reference to Trident will be\nremoved, as there is no reference in naming the port manager in the agreement.\nMember Matarrese requested an analysis on the risk assessment and liability of lease, stating that\nstaff and the City Attorney are being paid to review leases and contracts, not the responsibility of\nthe ARRA Board (to review leases, etc.). He recommended bringing this item back and the need\nto keep MARAD as a tenant, to see the Navy in legacy.\nChair Johnson agreed with Member Matarrese's request, stating she'd like a better definition of\nwhat the potential expenses and risks are. She stated that MARAD is an excellent tenant, and we\ndon't want to lose them; we just need to understand the lease better. She also requested that the\nTrident provision be completely separate and not included in the MARAD lease.\nMember Gilmore expressed concern about the lease not being included in the packet for review.\nShe prefers to receive copies of complex documents and decide how deeply to look at the\ndocuments or how much to rely on the staff report. Chair Johnson recommended that, at the\nleast, significant attachments (like Attachment H, etc.) be summarized in the staff report, or\nbe\nincluded in the package.\nWithout a formal motion, all members agreed to continue this item to the March 1, 2006\nARRA meeting with a request for a more detailed analysis of the ARRA's risk assessment\nand obligations under the MARAD lease.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese gave an overview of the Jan 5th meeting: The major item on the agenda was\nthe Petroleum Hydrocarbon Program update, highlighting the status and technical explanations\nof the remediation taking place on sites spread across Phase 1 and several in Phase 3. He stated\nthat there was an amazing mass of contaminants being removed: jet fuel, gasoline, etc. The next\nRAB meeting is Thursday, Feb 9.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speaker slips.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan requested an update on the Tinker Ave. / Webster St. exchange, stating that it is\nkey to fully developing FISC.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-02-01", "page": 5, "text": "Page 5\nMember Matarrese reiterated the Dec. 2004 ARRA-approved intent of requesting all ARRA\nleases (and licenses) come to ARRA, so they know what the arrangements are with tenants on\nthe property and to maintain their responsibility to the LIFOC.\nChair Johnson requested an update on the Hornet. Leslie Little, Development Services Director,\ninformed the Board that there is no lease negotiations ongoing at the time, and there has not been\nan existing lease with the Hornet for 2 years. Ms. Little will provide a report to the Board at the\nnext meeting. Ms. Little reiterated that updates are provided to the ARRA in monthly financial\nreports.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-03-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday - March 1, 2006-6:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties: ARRA, US Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners\nUnder negotiation: Price and Terms\nARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:20\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItema Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nMarch 1, 2006", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-04-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday - April 5, 2006- 6:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy\nUnder negotiation: Price and Terms\nARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItema Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nApril 5, 2006", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-04-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-05-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday- May 3, 2006--6:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair\nJohnson - 4.\nAbsent:\nMember Daysog.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy\nUnder negotiation: Price and Terms\nThe ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:25\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItura Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nMay 3, 2006", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday. June 7, 2006\nThe meeting convened at 7:08 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006.\n2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.\nApproval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -\n0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Certification of Golf Course EIR and Authorization to Proceed with Negotiations\nwith Port of Oakland and Army Corps of Engineers.\nElizabeth Johnson, Base Reuse Planner, presented an overview and requested certification of the\nfinal EIR for the Alameda Point Golf Course and Hotel Project. The draft EIR was circulated in\n2004, with revisions prepared in 2005 to accommodate additional information regarding\nwetlands on the site. The response to comments is also complete. Janie Alsep and Mark\nWindsor of EDAW, and Jack Fink from Moffat Nichol Engineers, the consultants who assisted\nin the preparation of the final EIR, were present to answer questions from the Board.\nChair Johnson asked if there was a time limit to start the project once it is certified. Elizabeth\nJohnson explained that the EIR is programmatic which allows us to go forward with negotiating\nwith the Port or the Army Corp to get materials for the site. Chair Johnson wanted to clarify to\nthe public that, at this point we haven't seen that the project is economically feasible; that we're\nnot moving forward with this project, and this is just a very preliminary action. Elizabeth\nJohnson concurred and further explained that the point of negotiating to get the dredge material\nwould be to determine the economic feasibility.\nMember Gilmore clarified that if/when the project is determined to be economically feasible, we\nwould still need a separate EIR for the Hotel/Conference Center. Member deHaan and Elizabeth\nJohnson discussed the current dredging at the Port of Oakland and that Alameda Point is the\nsecondary site to receive this dredge material, the primary site being Hamilton Field Wetland", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\nRecreation. In response to member deHaan's question regarding the value of the dredge\nmaterials, should the golf course project NOT go forward, Elizabeth Johnson explained that we\nwould be paid a Tipping Fee for the dredge materials.\nMember Daysog questioned the delay in having an economic analysis. In response, Chair\nJohnson reminded the Board that there was a several-year process where this consideration was\ngoing on - we had a Hotel expert and even had an RFP on hotel complexes. At that time,\nhowever, the downturn in the economy left the only people willing to propose a project was that\nwe owned a five-star hotel and paid them to manage it, and that was something the ARRA\nwasn't willing to do. Elizabeth Johnson further discussed that the ARRA, in 2004, directed staff\nto go ahead with preparation of the EIR in anticipation of the Hotel market coming back. Debbie\nPotter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, concurred with this discussion,\nadding that the hospitality industry has taken a while to bounce back since 9/11. She further\nexplained that once the EIR is certified, and we negotiate a Tipping Fee with the Army Corp and\nthe Port of Oakland that makes sense, then we can restudy the issue of the economic viability of\nthe project.\nThere was one speaker on this item, David Kerwin, who asked when and how often soil testing\nwill be done, expressing concern about loosened toxic materials if the property is not used for\na\ngolf course. Elizabeth Johnson responded that there will be a site-testing protocol in place.\nApproval to certify the final EIR was motioned by Chair Johnson and seconded by\nMember deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 1 (Member\nDaysog); Abstentions - 0.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese stated that he was unable to attend the last meeting and has no report.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speaker slips.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-07-05", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday. July 5, 2006\nThe meeting convened at 7:50 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\nMember Gilmore lead the Pledge of Allegiance.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 7, 2006.\n2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.\nApproval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions\n-\n0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese did not have a report.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speaker slips.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-07-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-08-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday- August 2, 2006-5:46 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION:\nName of Case:\nKienowski Chapter 11 Bankruptcy\nARRA gave direction to legal counsel to support the Chapter 11 Plan.\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy\nUnder negotiation: Price and Terms\nStaff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. ARRA provided instructions. No\naction was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nSince Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nAugust 2, 2006", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-09-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, September 6, 2006\nThe meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\n2-A\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 2, 2006.\n2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.\nApproval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member\ndeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A.\nRecommendations to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Three-Year\nConsultant Agreement with Trident Management, Inc. in the amount of $325,000.\nLeslie Little, Development Services Director, presented an overview of the Trident Management\nAgreement and the port services they provide to Alameda Point, primarily to MARAD and the\nNavy to Service the ships. Trident has been providing port services for Alameda Point since\nSeptember, 1996. Their original contract expired in 2002, and they are currently on a month-to-\nmonth status with an annual rate of $474,636.\nIn 2004, the operating subsidy to Trident was reduced, and in return, the ARRA relinquished its\nshare of the Trident sublease revenue. In the fall of 2004, Trident and the City Manager (Jim\nFlint) mapped out an agreement for a new five-year contract, which was never memorialized into\na contract. Since that time, staff has been attempting to renegotiate the contract.\nBefore the Board tonight is a three-year contract that can be mutually agreed upon by the City\nand Trident", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-09-06", "page": 2, "text": "Member Gilmore asked for an explanation of why we did not go out to bid. Ms. Little explained\nthat, since Trident was the inaugural port service provider, we tried very hard to work something\nout with them that was less expensive than what would have been charged historically. Staff\nalso recommends that at the end of this three year contract that we do go out to bid.\nMember Matarrese requested that the Board receive the policy on bidding and what the contract\nis, recognizing that it is a legacy and wants to make sure, going forward, we eliminate that\nuncertainty.\nApproval was motioned by Member Gilmore and seconded by Member Matarrese and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow (9/7) and will have a report in\nOctober.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere was one speaker, Elected East Bay Regional Park representative, Doug Siden, Alameda\nresident. Mr. Siden discussed as background that the EBRPD has been participating with the\nCity of Alameda in the planning process for the former Naval Air Station over the last 10 years.\nEBRPD's concern has been to see parkland included at Alameda Point located at what has been\ncalled Triangle Park (between the Hornet and the City's mini park along the shoreline). It has\nalways been shown in the studies that this property was going to be a parkland. In support of the\nCity's process, the EBRPD has applied to the State of California for a grant from Prop. 12\nmonies, and EBRPD has received $250,000, which is designated for the Triangle Park.\nMr. Siden expressed the concern of the EBRPD that under the provisions of Measure 12, land\ntenure has to be secured by the end of this year, and the project has to be completed and the\nmoney expended by the end of next year. So there will be another planning process, but the\nmoney will be lost in terms of the City of Alameda using it at the Triangle Park, if it cannot be\nexpended by the end of next year. The Park Agency will re-apply and be able to use the grant\nmoney somewhere else, but will need to move forward on an alternative grant use because of the\nsame requirement of completing the project by next year. EBRPD would like to get started with\nthe first portion of improvements to the Triangle Park. Included in their plans is to begin\ncreating a grassy area for picnics, parking, and tie-in with the City park upgrade, with an\ninterpretive center. They would also like to showcase green building, install solar cells for\nenergy and upgrade for an aquatic center.\nMr. Siden also discussed Measure AA, a $225m bond with the first 25% going to cities based on\npopulation. The City of Alameda received over $2m, and that money would soon be expended.\nEBRPD is looking toward the year 2008 to ask the voters to extend the same provisions so that it\nwould not be a new tax but rather a continuation of an existing measure.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-09-06", "page": 3, "text": "Member Matarrese and Chair Johnson asked what portion of Triangle Park Improvements the\n$250,000 would buy us. Referring to a map, Mr. Siden described the lower end toward Encinal\nHigh School and the City's mini park and said that the EBRPD will maintain it.\nMember Matarrese asked the ARRA Executive Director, Debra Kurita, to get staff to work on a\nway to accomplish us getting this investment in town. He expressed concern that the deadline\nfor getting the land dedicated and completing the project is fast approaching and requested this\nitem be moved up on the priority list and brought back to the ARRA Board.\nDebra Kurita responded that staff will agendize and bring this item back to the Board at its next\nmeeting on October 4, 2006.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted.\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-09-26", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nThursday, September 26, 2006- 6:01 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:15 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties: ARRA and Alameda Point Community Partners\nUnder negotiation: Price and Terms\nARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding APCP's withdrawal\nfrom Alameda Point and from negotiations with the Navy.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:35\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItema Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nSeptember 26, 2006", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday. October 4, 2006\nThe meeting convened at 7:05 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 2006.\nApproval of 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.\n2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.\nMember deHaan had questions about two of the subleases due to their duration and requested\ninformation about the specific tenants, as well as an overview of current leasing prospects.\nNanette Banks, Finance and Administration of DSD, explained that TransFreight Express wants\nto relocate their corporate headquarters and distribution center at Alameda Point. The other lease\nis to Makani for Building 19 to be used as R&D and office space. It is an alternative energy\n(wind-based) company that may also be interested in using the runways for experiments. Leslie\nLittle, Development Services Manager, indicated that there continues to be ongoing interest in\nthe buildings at Alameda Point, but pointed out the obviously expensive building improvements\nnecessary to make them usable, which tends to limit some potential businesses.\nApproval of 2-B was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.\n2-C. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to Execute a contact agreement with\nWRT/Solomon E.T.C. in the amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area planning activities\nfor Alameda Point.\nMember deHaan inquired about the source of the $250,000 and whether we are in a position\ntoday to approve the contract, given the master developer situation. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse\nand Community Development Manager, explained that this is pursuant to a $250,000 grant\nreceived from MTC - with City contribution of $3,000 - for the purpose of more detailed\nplanning of the transit node. To not go forward at this time means losing the grant. This study\nwill impact future land development plans; traffic and transit issues will need to be addressed\nregardless of who the developer is.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\nThere was one speaker on this item, Diane Lichtenstein, who praised the four workshops\noutlined in the contract and requested that after each workshop a summary report to be generated\n(perhaps in the local newspaper as well as the City's website). She also recommended\nexpanding the scope of the ferry analysis beyond the half-mile radius of the station as presently\nindicated. She also requested that all drafts of the report be available electronically.\nApproval of 2-C was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member deHaan and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Status Report on East Bay Regional Park District Request for Long-Term Lease.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, stated that, at the September\nARRA meeting, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) representatives Doug Siden and Mike\nAnderson indicated that EBRPD is ready to begin funding improvements at the 26-acre\nEnterprise Park through the use of Measure AA and Proposition 12 money (totaling $500,000).\nA portion of the Proposition 12 funds ($100,000) specify that land must be secured by the end of\nthis year, and the project must be completed and the money expended by the end of next year. It\nalso requires a 20-year lease on the land. According to the staff report, there could be a smaller,\nPhase 1 lease or a lease for the entire 26 acres. There are several other leases in place that\nencumber some portions of the 26 acres, including Alameda Soccer Club (until 2008) and the\nHobby Shop (until 2010).\nMember Daysog mentioned that 11 years ago, there was concern that EBRPD wanted an RV\nparking lot as part of their plan for this land. Ms. Potter confirmed that this is no longer an\noption.\nDoug Siden, elected EBRPD representative, reiterated the funding and timing requirements. He\nintroduced Mike Anderson, Assistant General Manager, who presented a map of the proposed\narea and plans. It consists of 10.6 acres and excludes current leased properties. Ultimately, the\nDistrict would like the entire 26 acres but could start with this plan. Proposed plans include\nfamily picnic sites, clean up of the tennis and basketball courts, development of the shoreline\ntrail to tie to the existing beach area, and clean up of the beach and boat launch areas. Future\nplans include a natural planning resource area and interpretive center, as well as boating\ninstruction at the marina.\nChair Johnson pointed out that other community groups have looked at this site, and also\nquestioned what would happen if the community would rather keep some of the facilities as they\nare. Mr. Anderson responded that if the City prefers to have more community input about use of\nthis area, EBRPD could either use $100,000 of the funds somewhere else in order to not lose\nthem - trimming their ultimate project to $400,000 - or use that first $100,000 to simply clean\nup the beach area and shoreline trail. Chair Johnson stressed that more community feedback\nabout what type of use for the area is preferable is needed before committing to a 20-year lease.\nMember Matarrese felt that the primary areas to spend the $500,000 should be the beach, bay\ntrail and picnic grounds. Mr. Anderson agreed that this should be doable and hoped to move", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3\nforward in negotiating a lease for these specific areas. Member deHaan expressed his desire that\nEBRPD continue to be involved in the area and asked how the funding stream would be\nmaintained in the future. Mr. Anderson indicated that possibly a small assessment district would\nhave to be established if the project becomes larger. Member Matarrese stated that he would like\na long-term commitment from EBRPD for the area. The consensus among ARRA members and\nEBRPD was the first priority is extending the Bay Trail from the boat ramp along the beach to\nthe Hornet; if additional funds remain, the other areas will be considered.\nMember Matarrese motioned that EBRPD make improvements on the Bay Trail from the\nexisting boat ramp as far north as possible, including cleaning up the beach. If additional\nfunds remain, they would be used for the picnic area and former RV parking lot. Staff was\ndirected to negotiate a lease with EBRPD to accomplish this. Member Daysog seconded the\nmotion, and the motion passed unanimously.\n3-B. Alameda Point Project Update.\nDebbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an Alameda Point update\npresentation to the Board. The presentation included a chronology of the ARRA's negotiations\nwith the Navy and an explanation to the community on how we went from \"no cost\" to paying\n$108.5 million for the Navy property. Ms. Potter also discussed the master developer, APCP's,\nelection not to proceed with the project and presented staff's recommendation for an initial next\nstep.\nMs Potter summarized the genesis of how we got from a no cost EDC to a 108.5 million dollar\npurchase price: She explained how the ARRA's PDC and the general plan call for over 3 million\nsquare feet of commercial development. In January 2004, however, the Navy sent a letter\nrequesting that we submit a formal amendment to our \"no-cost\" EDC application to formerly\nmake the case about why we felt like we continued to be eligible for a \"no-cost\" EDC. The\nNavy's letter further stated that it could not continue to work with us to negotiate on our early\ntransfer without such an amendment. The letter also said that they were more than happy to\nnegotiate a \"for-cost\" EDC with the ARRA. Because the Navy would be the ultimate entity to\ndeciding whether or not we were still eligible for the no cost EDC and because they had clearly\ncommunicated to us that they felt we were no longer eligible and because legislation was in the\nworks to preclude no cost EDC's in the future, the ARRA made a decision that it would be more\neffective if we sat down and negotiated with the Navy for a for-cost\"conveyance. We started\nour \"New Beginnings\" with the Navy in 2004 but the federal government also eliminated no cost\neconomic development in 2004 and none of the bases that are closed as part of the BRAC 5 are\ngoing to eligible for a no cost economic development conveyance, most of those properties are\ngoing to be disposed of as is where is. So it took us a little over 2 years to negotiate with the\nNavy to prepare the PDC and to negotiate a land price. And in June of this year we concluded\nnegotiations with the Navy with a draft term sheet that included a $108.5 million dollar purchase\nprice. On September 21st, APCP withdrew from the project, citing the downturn in the\nresidential market and that they could no longer support the $108.5 million line price given the\nland plan.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4\nWith that negotiation process and chronology behind us, and the withdrawal of our Master\nDeveloper, Staff is proposing, as the initial next step, that we test the market through a request\nfor qualifications (RFQ) process with the current term sheet. In the event that we are unable to\nidentify a replacement development then we would work with the Navy on an alternate\ndisposable strategy, most likely a public sale, an approach that the Navy had been taking of late.\nChair Johnson asked about the on-going work with the Navy, in the event that a buyer under the\ncurrent term sheet doesn't come forward. Ms. Potter answered that we will continue to run our\nleasing program, and the Navy will continue to run it's environmental clean up program. Chair\nJohnson also asked about the cost of working with the Navy to move forward with alternatives if\na replacement developer isn't identified. Ms. Potter explained that the ARRA's budget did\nconsider a scenario where the master developer didn't go forward and staff is funded in the\nARRA budget and consultants would probably need far fewer consultants then we've had when\nwe've been in activity negotiations on a term sheet and those kind of things, but we would still\nneed to work with our environmental consultant and our out side counsel, those costs are\nincluded in the ARRA's budget.\nTo answer Chair Johnson's question about what types of consultants would we still continue to\nneed, Ms. Potter answered that we would continue to use an environmental consultant because\nwe comment on all of the Navy environmental clean up documents. Chair Johnson asked if we\nshould ask the Navy to pay for the consultants at that point.\nDavid Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, clarified that these are consultants that we use to\nprotect the City's interest when it comes to the work that the Navy's doing on clean up as well as\nif there gonna be issuing opinions about the tidelands trust, then we need to have our experts\nweighing in about the tidelands trust and where were believe the legal issues are and those kinds\nof things.\nMember Daysog began a discussion regarding the ARRA's no-cost EDC agreement with the\nUnited States Navy. He referenced several paragraphs of the Navy's letter to Debbie Potter dated\nApril 7, 2003 regarding the basis for the Navy approval of a no cost EDC. Member Daysog is\nvery concerned about the $108 million purchase price, stating that if APCP couldn't work\nit\nthrough, that it would be difficult to find a replacement master developer. He'd rather see the\n$108 million go toward public amenities that have been contemplated.\nThe Chair, Boardmembers and Staff discussed, at length, the challenges we faced and the\navailable options we continue to deal with in order to move forward. Member deHaan and Chair\nJohnson discussed researching a concept that looks at phases in the future to anticipate changes\nin the market. The Board also expressed their interest in going back to a no-cost EDC (build less\nresidential), but Ms. Potter explained that, according to the Navy, a no-cost EDC was dead,\nbecause a project that included less residential was not economically viable. She said, however,\nthat if the ARRA desires, we could continue discussions with the Navy about convincing them\nthat were still eligible for our no cost EDC. She further discussed that the ARRA does have an\nagreement, an executed MOA with the Navy, but that the Navy is going to require us to submit\nan amendment to that no cost EDC.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 5, "text": "Page 5\nDavid Brandt further clarified the more fundamental legal problem which is, we would have to\namend our EDC application and unfortunately, the Navy will argue that there's no more legal\nauthority over a no cost EDC so we would be essentially be giving up our no cost EDC.\nChair Johnson and Member Matarrese would like more information and analysis about whether\nwe are legally able to hold the Navy to the existing no-cost EDC agreement.\nMember Daysog expressed the importance of involving the public so that the $108 million isn't\nspent on projects that veer so far away from the community resource reuse plan and the public\namenities that have already been contemplated. Ms. Potter addressed Member Daysog's concern\nby noting that the negotiated price of $108.5 million was based on a proforma that provided\nfiscal neutrality, provided for the sports complex, provided for the open space, provided for 25%\naffordable housing, so all of the goals that has been identified over the years were taken into\naccount and provided for with that land purchase price. Granted that tax increment was pledged\nto the project that was part of it too, but it provided in all of the transit, the shuttle, the ecopath is\nall of the things that have been talked about over the last several years, were all accounted for in\nthe proforma that had the $108.5 million dollar land purchase price.\nMember deHaan asked about the process used at other closed military bases, including Mare\nIsland and the Presidio. David Brandt explained that the Presidio was conveyed under a trust but\nthat federal legislation is needed for that. Mr. Brandt said that we could approach our delegation\nto ask if that's feasible.\nThe first speaker on this item, Pam Telschow, expressed how glad she was that the ARRA was\ngoing back to consider every option and that they are not just going to jump into looking for a\nnew Master Developer. Chair Johnson expressed her opinion that she felt it was a remote\npossibility that another developer would just step right in where APCP left off. The second\nspeaker, Helen Sause, also echoed Ms. Telschow's concerns and the direction of the Board,\nurging them to select and find those developers that have very deep experiences in commercial,\nlight industrial retail, and other forms of development. She also suggested that the selection\nprocess involve the community. Chair Johnson wanted the public to have a full understanding\nthat although the Development Services Dept. has received numerous inquiries, those inquiries\nmay not be viable. The third speaker, Elizabeth Krase, recommended we find a master developer\nthat would keep keeps more of the historic buildings.\nMember Matarrese commented that he is heartened by the attendance of tonight's meeting and\nthat it's very important that we also look at the strength of our controls on the planning and our\ncity restrictions on development. He further stated that the comments from the speakers are\nvaluable and would like to see them translated into where we go forward. Member Daysog\ncommented that it's absolutely vital for the City of Alameda through the ARRA to continue to be\na leader in converting the base and to not allow the Navy to be in the drivers seat through\na\npublic action process. There was further discussion about the caretaking of the property and\nrequesting that the Navy return to those responsibilities.\nDebbie Potter summarized the direction from the Board and other issues to explore: researching\nthe legality and shear logistics of the numbers to see if we can revert back to a no-cost EDC; the", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 6, "text": "Page 6\nparallel path of moving forward with an RFQ process to see if there is a developer who wants to\nstep into the existing field; a public sale; federal legislation on a trust; caretaker issues, etc.\nA motion to initiate an RFQ and to reevaluate all other options discussed was motioned by\nChair Johnson and seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote:\nAyes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese attended the September 7th meeting, highlighting issues regarding additional\nradiological testing of sites 1,2, and 32. There was also an update on site 25, the Coast Guard\nnorth housing and a observation of a violation of the marsh crust ordinance (trenching and\ndigging). Member Matarrese would like the City to investigate further.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nPer Member Matarrese's earlier discussion of the RAB meeting regarding Site 25, Member\ndeHaan requested an update at the next regular ARRA meeting on the status of Site 25.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday. November 1, 2006\nThe meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006.\nMember Daysog pulled Item 2-A to articulate what he meant when he referenced certain letters\nregarding the ARRA's No-Cost EDC with the Navy. He reiterated his point that if we could\nreturn to the original understanding of the housing units that could be built-out per the\ndocuments agreed to by the ARRA and the Navy, perhaps we would not have to pay the\n$108,000 million the navy is now requiring. Member Daysog wanted to make sure this point\nwas captured in this evening's meeting, since it was missed in the Minutes of October 4th.\n2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore was not present\nat the 10-4-06 ARRA meeting).\n2-B. Recommendation to approve consultant agreement with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers for\nPier Condition Analysis at Alameda Point in an amount not to exceed $170,226\nApproval of 2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Project Update\nDebbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an overview on the Master\nDeveloper RFQ process. At the direction of the Board, the RFQ was issued on October 19th with\na mandatory bidder's conference on Monday, October 30th. There were 20 firms that attended\nthe bidder's conference. All due diligence documents were provided on a CD and an FTP site\navailable for all interested firms, and a comprehensive download of the land planning, the\nenvironmental issues, the public trust, summary of term sheet; and an opportunity for those\npresent to ask questions. One-on-one meetings were also offered with the firms intending to\nrespond, with nine firms signed up. Responses are due December 4, 2006 and need to be", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\naccompanied by a $20,000 non-refundable filing fee. The responses received will be evaluated\nand brought back to the ARRA should we receive responses with a recommendation to enter into\na 45-day negotiation period.\nThere was one speaker slip, Andrew Slifka, long-time Alameda resident and also a representative\nof the Carpenter's Union in Alameda County, and speaking on behalf of the Construction\nBuilding Trades Council of Alameda County. Mr. Slifka addressed concerns and disappointment\nwith the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) withdrawal from the project since they had\na Project Labor Agreement with APCP. He urged the Board to look at the same requirements for\nany developer that should come forward, because Project Labor agreements bring value to the\ncommunity, well-paying jobs with benefits, careers and local work opportunities.\nMember Daysog asked if specific questions regarding the financing of the project were outlined\nin the RFQ. He commented on the financing/business model associated with revitalizing the\nCatellus project and how it was distinct from the business model that was employed for the rest\nof Alameda Point. He also discussed incorporating a different business model.\nDavid Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, responded that developers will be asked who their\nsource of capital is and for a deposit of \"earnest money\" in the amount or $1 million before a\ndeveloper is selected. This information will be provided to the Board.\nMember Daysog asked if the potential developers understood the amount of property open for\nredevelopment. Ms. Potter responded that the $108 million purchase price is based on Phases 1\nand Phases 2, which is essentially everything but the Wildlife Refuge and the area south of\nAtlantic Ave. and north of the 26-acre park, plus the golf course. David Brandt also clarified that\nwe were careful to let the developers know that the PDC wasn't an entitlement.\nMember Matarrese asked whether a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) was presented to the\nbidders as part of the package that APCP (former master developer) put together. Debbie Potter\nresponded that a PLA was not included in the RFQ and that it was not a requirement of the City\nwhen the first master developer was selected; but that a PLA was voluntarily agreed to by at least\ntwo out of the three finalists during the first master developer selection process.\nMember Matarrese requested that bidders be notified that a PLA was part of the original\nagreement and that the City does have a policy on prevailing wage. He was concerned that\nbidders would try to make their numbers work at the cost of labor. Ms. Potter said that a copy of\nthe previously agreed-to document will be posted on the RFQ FTP site.\nMember deHaan discussed extending the current month-to-month leasing policy to a year-to-\nyear policy in anticipation that the master developer would start taking down property. David\nBrandt acknowledged that the current ARRA direction is that all leases over a year come to the\nARRA, and that potential tenants are told that redevelopment is imminent so long term leases are\nnot being offered. This is being reevaluated to decide whether to start bringing longer term leases\nto the ARRA.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 3, "text": "an agreement (not even actually shoveling dirt or tearing down buildings, etc.) David Brandt\nresponded that the soonest would be two years. Member Gilmore commented that this increases\nthe timeframe \"window\" and recommended that when staff returns in January with the study\nsession of the leases, it might be worthwhile to take a look at not just the 3rd and 4th phases, but\nthe 1st and 2nd phases, too. Ms. Little clarified that we will be presenting an entire overview of\nall the leasing and it can be compared against the PDC.\nNo action was taken on this item - it was an update and for informational purposes only.\n3-B. Alameda Point Environmental Remediation Update: Western Shoreline - IR Sites\n1,2, and 32, Soil at IR Site 25 (Coast Guard North Housing), and Compliance with\nMarsh Crust Ordinance\nDebbie Potter gave an update on the clean-up status of these specific IR sites, as requested at the\nOctober 4 ARRA meeting. Peter Russell, environmental consultant from Russell Resources, was\navailable to answer questions from the Board as a follow-up to the staff report provided.\nMember Matarrese's main concern was the Navy's option to install an engineered cap rather than\na soil cover over landfill waste. Member Matarrese, along with the rest of the Board members,\ndiscussed at length their preferred alternative: having the Navy scoop out the landfill sites and\nhaul it away.\nDebbie Potter discussed the process by which Peter Russell reviews all documents the Navy\npromulgates regarding all IR sites. She explained that we comment during the public comment\nperiod, but we do it at a staff level. She agrees with Member Gilmore about the policy-level\ndecision that we want clean-up to a level that supports the community reuse plan and the PDC,\nand that the Navy has committed to clean-up to the reuses that are identified in the PDC. Ms\nPotter further explained, and reiterated by Peter Russell, that the ARRA-preferred option to\nscoop and haul the landfill is not economically feasible - and an engineered cap is potentially\nequally effective. She said that the City advocated the engineered cap since the beginning when\nwe secured the pilot grant from EPA. Ms. Potter stated that the engineered cap is financially\nviable and is scientifically the best solution, a decision staff concluded in consultation with\nenvironmental experts.\nMember Matarrese commented that he had issues with the feasibility, that it didn't sound so\ndaunting at the RAB meetings and that the scoop and haul option is actually feasible. Peter\nRussell responded that from a technical standpoint, the scoop and haul option would cost more.\nDebbie Potter sought direction from the ARRA as to a response for the public comment period\ndue to the Navy by Nov. 10th", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-11-01", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4\nMember Matarrese motioned to direct staff to submit a letter to the Navy during the public\ncomment period to include the ARRA policy aspect and endorse the preferred solution of\nscoop and haul, rather than an engineered cap. This motion was seconded by Member\nDaysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nReport was covered in discussion of Item 3-B, above.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nMayoral Candidate, Kenneth Kahn, stated that it would be an honor to serve with all of the\nmembers of the Board.\n5.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan clarified a comment that was made regarding parolees working at Alameda\nPoint. He stated that we indeed had parolees working at Alameda Point about 10 years ago\nthrough the Volunteers of America Program, under the control of the Navy. He explained that\nwe were short of man-power, so we utilized San Quentin inmates that were being transitioned for\nlandscaping and maintenance.\n6. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-12-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, December 6 2006- 6:15 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 7:00 p.m. to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties: ARRA and Alameda Point Community Partners\nUnder negotiation: Price and Terms\nARRA staff provided the ARRA with facts and background information regarding disputes\nwith Trident Management Inc., our port managers. Direction given to staff. Nothing more\nto report at this time.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:12\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItura Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2006", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday. January 2, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nLena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 6, 2006.\n2-B. Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the\nStandards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613.\nApproval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese\nand passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Tam\nwas not present at the 12-6-06 ARRA meeting).\nApproval of Items 2-B and 2-C was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member\nMatarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nThere was no report as Member Matarrese was unable to attend the last RAB meeting.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speaker slips.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan discussed opportunities of the cruise ship industry, citing that the docking of\ncruise ships in San Francisco earned $10 million per year. Member deHaan requested that staff", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\ninvestigate this opportunity further, particularly the deep water docks included in the MARAD\nlease. Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said the item will be agendized and be brought back to\nthe ARRA.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-02-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday. February 7, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nLena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 2, 2007.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 16, 2007.\n2-C. Approve Sublease for Tenant at Alameda Point.\nApproval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member\nMatarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Selection of a New Master Developer for Alameda Point.\nEach of the four master developer teams provided a formal presentation to the Board, in the\nfollowing order, chosen at random: Lennar, Suncal, United World Infrastructure, Catellus. After\nthe formal presentations, there were several public speakers, most of who encouraged the Board\nto not make a selection tonight and/or until further information was provided by each of the\nteams. At approximately 9:50 p.m., Chair Johnson closed the public comment period and\nrecessed the meeting for 10 minutes. After the recess, each team approached the podium and\nanswered questions from the Board. Because of the in-depth nature of the questions, the Board\nallowed the teams an opportunity to take the questions as \"homework\" and provide responses at\na later date to be determined.\nThe Board requested canceling the Regular ARRA meeting of March 7 to consider\nscheduling a Special ARRA Meeting on March 21 to continue this item. The Regular\nARRA meeting of April 4 will be the fall-back date in case staff isn't ready by 3/21.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-02-07", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nThe RAB meeting on Feb. 1 gave a very interesting presentation on heat removal of volatile\nmaterials in the groundwater and in the soil. Apparently when the electro-heaters are activated,\nthey use more electricity than the entire rest of the island. It heats the grounds up to 28 feet deep\nup to 98 degrees C, which is just under boiling. It takes approximately 1.5 years to cool back\ndown but is a very effective means of remediation currently in progress at two sites: Bldg 360\n(Phase 2 and very contaminated), and Parcel 17 near the seaplane lagoon east. There was also an\nupdate of that area with a data gap sampling near the Hornet soccer field and bay trail. Surface\nsamples upwind of the Hornet soccer field was highlighted as an area of concern.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nEugenie Young spoke about the cruise ship opportunities at Alameda Point.\nAt approximately 11:52 p.m., Member Matarrese moved to continue the meeting beyond\nmidnight, seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5,\nNoes - 0, Abstentions - 0.\nBill Smith spoke about various topics.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m with a moment of silence in honor of Assistant City\nAttorney, Byron Toma's father, Takeyuki Toma, aka \"Dick\" Toma, who passed away this\nweekend. He served in WWII as part of the 447th Japanese American Regiment.\nRespectfully submitted,\nStune Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-04-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, April 4, 2007- - 6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and Chair Johnson\n- 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and Alameda Point Tenants (ANAM; USS Hornet; Puget\nSound International)\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nStaff presented reports to the ARRA regarding the status of the leases with ANAM, USS Hornet,\nand Puget Sound International. Staff solicited and received guidance and direction as to each of\nthe leases.\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and Alameda Point Tenants (Edge Innovations)\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nStaff presented a report to the Board and the Board provided direction to Staff.\nCONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL\nInitiation of Litigation (Gov. Code section 54956.9(c))\nNumber of cases: 1\nStaff presented recommendation to the Board. Direction given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nStrugg\nGlidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nApril 4, 2007", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-04-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-05-08", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday. May 8, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 7:13 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nLena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 2007.\n2-B. Review and approve all new and existing subleases at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Disposition of Personal Property - Proposed Sale of 45 Foot Yard Tug Boat.\nItem 2-C. was withdrawn. Approval of items 2-A and 2-B. was motioned by Member\nMatarrese, seconded by Member Tam and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;\nNoes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Consideration of Master Developer Partnership Agreement and Master Developer\nSelection.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview on the\nstatus of the of the Master Developer process. She summarized that, on April 4, the ARRA\nselected Catellus and Lennar Urban as co-master developers and the Board requested they return\nwith a Partnership Agreement in 30 days. On May 2nd Catellus and Lennar submitted a non-\nbinding term sheet that described general provisions that would be included in a yet-to-be-\ndetermined Operating Agreement. The term sheet contemplated a 60-day time frame for\ncompleting the partnership agreement. The evaluation team reviewed the term sheet and\nconcluded that it raised more questions than answers regarding the potential to reach a\npartnership agreement. Missing terms included: the use of third party equity capital, how\nadditional partners could be added, and what constitutes default under the agreement. Important\nitems deferred were remedies for breach of contract, dispute resolution, percentage of vertical\ndevelopment reserved for each partner, etc. Concerns about the ultimate management structure,\ncost of third party equity funds vs. self financing and approach to development resulted in the\ndetermination that it was unlikely a partnership agreement can be negotiated that maximizes\ntimely, cost effective, market driven redevelopment of Alameda Point. Staff recommended that\nthe Board reconsider the partnership approach and select one master developer. Staff identified\nCatellus as the better partner for ARRA as they are self financing and their minimum IRR\nrequirement is the lowest.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-05-08", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\nEach of the master developer teams was given 10 minutes to make final comments (in this order:\nCatellus, Lennar, and SunCal) before the Board began discussion of the item.\nThere was one public speaker, Richard Rutter, who discussed his support of staff's\nrecommendation to select one Master Developer.\nThe following motions were made:\nMember Matarrese motioned to set aside the Partnership Agreement approach and select\njust one Master Developer. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes - 4, Noes - 1 (Gilmore).\nMember Matarrese motioned to appoint Catellus as the Master Developer. Motion was\nseconded by Chair Johnson and failed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 2 (Matarrese,\nJohnson), Noes - 3 (Tam, deHaan, Gilmore).\nMember Tam motioned to select SunCal as the Master Developer. Motion was seconded\nby Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3 (Tam, deHaan,\nGilmore), Noes - 2 (Johnson, Matarrese).\n3-B. Approve Draft Comment Letters on Record of Decision for Installation Restoration\nSites 1 and 25 and Authorize Executive Director to Submit Comment Letters to the\nNavy.\nAt the last meeting, Member Matarrese asked staff to prepare comments on the draft ROD for\nSites 1 and 25. Member Matarrese requested that the bottom-line and desires of the ARRA is\nstated right up front as an introduction of the letters.\nMember Matarrese moved to approve the letters with the edit of repeating the end goal\nright at the front of the letter. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the\nfollowing voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nThere was no report, as Member Matarrese was on vacation and did not attend the meeting.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere was one speaker, David Howard, who spoke about car-ownership for low income\nindividuals and families of the affordable housing development at Alameda Point.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-05-08", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nnone.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:57 by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nHave Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-06-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING\nof the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, June 6, 2007-6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nBoardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and\nChair Johnson - 5.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\n2151 Ferry Point, Alameda, CA\nNegotiating parties:\nCity of Alameda and Alameda Naval Air Museum\nUnder negotiation:\nLease price and terms\nARRA received an oral briefing from its Real Property Negotiator, no action was taken.\nCONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and SunCal Companies\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nThe ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding the status of\nnegotiations with SunCal, and provided negotiating direction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nItema Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 6, 2007", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-07-18", "page": 1, "text": "Approved\nMinutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the\nCity Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nWednesday, July 18, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 7:53 p.m. with Mayor/Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Mayor/Chair Beverly Johnson\nCouncilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Marie Gilmore\nCouncilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Doug deHaan\nCouncilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Frank Matarrese\nVice Mayor/Boardmember/Commissioner Lena Tam\n2.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nItem 2-A. Recommendation to Approve Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between\nARRA, CIC, City of Alameda (Alameda) and SCC Alameda Point, LLC (SunCal).\nLeslie Little, Development Services Director, introduced staff and those involved in the ENA\nprocess: for SunCal was Bill Myers, Amy Freilich, their Counsel, and Steve Elieff, President of\nSunCal. For ARRA was Matt Fragner, Real Estate transaction attorney and special Counsel to\nthe ARRA, and Jim Musbach Financial Consultant from EPS.\nMs. Little gave a powerpoint presentation as an overview of the ENA process, citing the purpose\nof the ENA:\n-\nDefine redevelopment and entitlement process for Alameda Point\n-\nProvide a framework for negotiation of a Disposition and Development Agreement\n-\nEstablish a process for negotiating and executing various other transaction\ndocuments.\nIncluded in the presentation was a summary of the major terms of the ENA, including the length\nof term, schedule of performance, initial payment and cost recovery, project labor agreement,\nfiscal neutrality, project pro forma, existing city leases, and transfers.\nNext steps included:\n-\nSunCal to provide a pre-development schedule for achieving mandatory and non-\nmandatory milestones within 30 days to be updated quarterly\n-\nSunCal, in conjunction with ARRA staff, to commence project planning and\nnegotiations\nAt the conclusion of the presentation, there was concern by all Councilmembers/Boardmembers/\nCommissioners of three issues included in the ENA, specifically regarding: 1) the financial\nstructure and knowledge of who the financial partners are before the DDA process, including the\nreference to the 5% contribution relative to the DDA; 2) the liability of the acquisition price of\n$108.5M ; and 3) prohibiting transfers during the ENA period.\nAt 9:50 p.m., Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess so that the SunCal team could discuss these\nissues with their principals. The meeting reconvened at 10:22 p.m.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-07-18", "page": 2, "text": "Matt Fragner, with the Councilmember's/Boardmember's/Commissioner's approval, revised and\nrecited the precise language modifying the three specific issues of the ENA.\nouncilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner deHaan motioned to approve the ENA with\nthe modifications to the specific sections in the ENA. Motion was seconded by Vice\nMayor/Boardmember/Commissioner Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5 Ayes,\n0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.\n3.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 11:27 by Mayor/Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, August 7, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 9:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nVice Chair Lena Tam\nAbsent: Boardmember Marie Gilmore\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 18, 2007.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority/Community Improvement Commission of July 18, 2007.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o\nnoes, 0 abstentions.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Approve a 12-Month Contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in the\nAmount of $185,000 to Provide Negotiation Support and to Conduct a Fiscal Impact\nAnalysis for the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nLeslie Little gave an overview of the contract and work scope of Economic and Planning\nSystems (EPS), explaining that they will assist in developing the business plan and fiscal impact\nassessment for Alameda Point. Leslie affirmed Chair Johnson's question about whether the cost\nwill be reimbursed by SunCal. Member Matarrese clarified that, since EPS is the current\nfinancial consultant under contract with the ARRA, this is an extension of that contract. Chair\nJohnson encouraged holding negotiation briefings and sessions in open session, to the extent\npossible, in order to keep the public better informed on significant issues. Member Matarrese\nagreed and complimented staff, stating that having the last ENA negotiations right in full public\nview was successful.\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the contract, seconded by Member deHaan and\npassed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), 0 noes, 0\nabstentions.\n3-B. Authorize Executive Director to Initiate Negotiations for a Short Term Large Parcel\nLease and Caretaker Agreement for the Former Alameda Naval Air Station North Housing\nComplex", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 2, "text": "David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, summarized to the Board that the Navy's caretaker\nobligations for the former North Housing Complex will expire in September, and recommends\nthat the ARRA assume caretaker and maintenance responsibilities. He discussed that it would be\na simple conveyance to gain control of the property so that it can be leased. The property is still\nfully operational but deteriorating rapidly. Mr. Brandt discussed the BRAC process: as soon as\nthe property is declared as surplus, the Local Reuse Authority (ARRA) is responsible for\nscreening the property. This process could take as long as a year, but there are several options\nfor conveyance, including a public benefit conveyance for the park, a homeless accommodation\nrequest, or negotiated EDC for cost. Chair Johnson suggested trying to acquire all the property.\nMember deHaan questioned the legal ramifications for the conveyance process, and taking over\nwith a no-cost EDC. Mr. Brandt explained that the Navy's position is that they are not governed\nby the old BRAC rules - that they are applying the post-2005 \"No no-cost EDC\" rules. All\nBoardmembers agreed that the ARRA should move forward expeditiously in order to preserve\nthe parkland and prevent further deterioration of the property.\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the staff recommendation with further direction\nto convey the entire property (Marina Village and North Housing complex) to the City.\nThe motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4\nayes (Member Gilmore absent), o noes, o abstentions.\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nBill Smith spoke about various topics including clean-up problems, liquefaction, and the surplus\nhousing at former North Housing.\n5.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan discussed a side trip tour he had of Fort Ord with Mr. Michael Houlimard, and\ncompared the Fort Ord redevelopment project with the Alameda Point project. Member deHaan\nexplained that at Fort Ord, they are only redeveloping 8 acres (out of 28,000 acres) of disturbed\nland. The rest became one habitat or recreation areas. He expressed how successful the Fort Ord\nproject is because they focused on their award-winning Community Reuse Plan, which, to their\nbenefit, had many special interests, including the University of California and two major retail\noperations, one lifestyle and one big box. Even the Army itself wanted to retain some of the\nproperty. Member deHaan further explained that Fort Ord's reuse authority could dissolve in the\nnext two years, since their cash flow has put them into a positive, quite contrary to where\nAlameda Point is. Fort Ord has also begun building a phase of housing units around the existing\ngolf course (there will be 12,000 residential units total); there is one hotel and another bid for a\nRitz Carlton. Member deHaan attributes the success of the Fort Ord project to their focus on the\ncommunity reuse plan, their expedient manner and that they did not veer from that plan.\nMember Matarrese suggested agendizing a report of the Fort Ord project as an update and called\nto move the agenda.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 10:34 by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-09-04", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, September 4, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 9:34 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 7, 2007.\n2-B. Approve Two-Year Sublease for Architectural Glass & Aluminum at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Approve the Proposed Sale and Disposition of Surplus Property at Alameda Point, Itemized\nas Five Rapid Electric Rectifiers, One Industrial Oven, Two Abrasive Blasters, and One\nAbar Ipson IVD Machine, for a Total Amount of $84,000 in Revenue to the ARRA.\n2-D. Approval to Provide Building 24 for No Cost for Alameda Boys & Girls Club Fundraiser.\nMember deHaan pulled Item 2-D. Approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar was\nmotioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the\nfollowing voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions. Member Gilmore abstained from Item\n2-A (Aug. 7 Minutes), as she was absent from that meeting.\nMember deHaan asked why Item 2-D was brought before the ARRA on short notice. Debbie\nPotter, Base Reuse & Community Development Manager, explained that the ARRA Board meets\nonce a month, and often times requests come through, particularly from non-profits or small\nbusinesses that might not be familiar with the steps and processes necessary to approve their\nrequests. Their lack of familiarity that any requests would have to come to the board is the\nreason for the short notice, and as soon as the request was received, it was placed on the agenda.\nMs. Potter further explained that it is not unusual to take and approve requests for fee-waivers\nfrom non-profits; but in the past, this was done administratively, and just more recently, the\npolicy was to bring these requests to the ARRA.\nMember deHaan motioned to approve Item 2-D, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by\nthe following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Master Project Schedule Prepared by SCC\nAlameda Point LLC", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-09-04", "page": 2, "text": "Debbie Potter summarized the Alameda Point project to date and introduced Pat Keliher,\nSunCal's Project Manager, to present the Master Project Schedule. The ENA calls for the master\nplan to be prepared initially, and updated on a quarterly basis and presented to the ARRA. The\nfirst update of the Master Schedule will be presented in the Dec. - Jan. timeframe.\nPat Keliher walked through highlights of the Project Master Schedule and explained that the\nschedule was put together in a logical manner, first with the public planning process, which\nclearly is important to set the stage for a final development plan. The first community meeting\nwill be scheduled very soon, and consist of land, site, design constraints and charettes. The\nsecond stage of public process includes returning back to the public to present a development\nconcept. Mr. Keliher emphasized how critical it is to remain consistent and continue the public\nprocess throughout the project timeline. Next critical item on the schedule is the traffic, location,\nand infrastructure impacts of the VA issue and scope of their project. Mr. Keliher stated that\nSunCal began early on working together with the VA.\nThe next key phase is the Planning and Entitlement phase where the development concept,\npublic amenities, adaptive reuse, and historic district issues are refined. Mr. Keliher explained\nthat SunCal has met with members of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS),\nand with Chris Buckley and Richard Rutter, to evaluate buildings and uses in the historic district.\nSunCal's next key item on the schedule is the submittal of the Entitlement Application in March\n2008. Mr. Keliher did not go into detail with the balance of schedule which includes the DA,\nDDA, CAA, Business Plan, MOA, Tidelands Trust Agreement, etc. He further explained that the\nNEPA & CEQA processes can't start until project description is in place. He expressed how\ncritical the next three to six months are and that SunCal is committed to meeting the milestones.\nMember Matarrese focused on the zoning issue and asked when Zoning will be adopted. He\nrequested that the Zoning is put under the control of the City and is locked so that the City\nprotects itself. Debbie Potter explained that the city anticipates the entitlement package\n(Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment,\nZoning amendment, and Master Plan) will all come together as one package, and, pursuant to the\nENA allows this in July 2009. One of the mandatory milestones is the submittal of an initial\nentitlement package by May 2008, which will trigger the CEQA process. David Brandt, Deputy\nExecutive Director, explained that the milestone is not an actual exchange, just a framework\nagreement of how we'll proceed. Chair Johnson requested it is made clear that the milestone is a\nframework. Mr. Brandt further explained that once the CEQA process is complete, the City\nCouncil can then adopt Zoning, but legally it cannot be done without an environmental review\nprocess. Member Matarrese expressed concern about zoning changes and that any changes have\nto go thru the City so that it is not left open if the Navy decides to change the rules. Debbie\nPotter explained that the intent is to execute all required documents simultaneously such that we\nprotect our existing position as our role as the trustee. Ms. Potter assured that she will discuss\nwith the Planning dept. about whether or not the existing EIR done for the General Plan\nAmendment is sufficient, or whether we will have to undertake additional environmental review.\nAn update on this issue will be reported at the Oct. ARRA meeting.\nMember deHaan asked if the Navy will be able to meet the timeline, and if not, what the\nconsequences are. David Brandt stated that we cannot guarantee that the Navy will perform and\nwe cannot control third party delay. Debbie Potter stated that we should be hearing from the\nNavy about the schedule in the next day or so.\nMember Gilmore commented that our sense of urgency does not match the Navy's and that they\nneed to come to the realization that time is money for everyone involved. The costs of", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-09-04", "page": 3, "text": "construction, infrastructure, etc. makes the project difficult, and the factors that affect our\ndeveloper, and would affect any developer, affects the Navy as well.\nPat Keliher stated that SunCal has a tactical strategy to deal with the Navy - that they have a\nstreamlined process of sharing technical studies and other documents that underpin the CEQA &\nNEPA processes; but that there are still a lot of unknowns, including whether there will be\nfunding for clean-up. Chair Johnson compared the Oaknoll site to Alameda, that Oaknoll was a\nclean site without Tidelands Trust issues. Mr. Keliher reiterated SunCal's commitment to the\nchallenging, but necessary task, stating that SunCal would work with the City of Alameda, their\nconsultants and lobbyists, to deal with the changing climate ahead that may affect things moving\nforward.\nThe Board thanked Mr. Keliher and SunCal for presenting the Master Project Schedule and\nexpressed it was a job well done.\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n5.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n6. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-10-03", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, October 3, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Vice Chair Tam presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Boardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\nChair Johnson arrived at 7:52 p.m. (during item 3-B).\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 4, 2007.\n2-B. Approve Three-Year Sublease for Sustainable Technologies at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Approve the Waiver of License Fee for Alameda Unified School District Student Activities.\n2-D. Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident\nManagement, Inc. to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes, o noes, 0 abstentions.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Presentation by Friends of the Wildlife Refuge - An Update of Their Activities at\nAlameda Point.\nA power point presentation was made by Leora Feeney, Chair of FAWR, and Eli Saddler,\nConservation Director for Golden Gate Audubon, to update the Board and community on the\nresources at the Alameda proposed Wildlife Refuge to ensure the resources are protected while\ntransfer negotiations continue. Eli Saddler thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the\nupdate and encouraged them to do whatever possible to protect the resource. He expressed\nconcern about the current plans that have been proposed that are within the area that was\nconsidered in the Biological Opinion. They want to continue to work cooperatively with the VA\nto protect the resource and honor the veterans at the same time.\nMember deHaan commented on how nice it is to look at the maturity of the site, referring to the\nphotos included in the presentation. He asked if the resources, the ponds and wildlife area, are\ngetting to a better state. Ms. Feeney replied that the ponds are wonderful, but that Alameda Point\nand the breakwater is vulnerable. She discussed the increase in the Pelican numbers, and the use\nof the willows by migratory birds, including a hawk, one winter. Ms. Feeney also mentioned\nhow far the recognition of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge stretches, explaining that two college\nstudents chose the Refuge site for their graduate work, one from Los Angeles, and the other from", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-10-03", "page": 2, "text": "Toronto, Canada. Also, the first magazine issued by the National Wildlife Refuge Association\nincluded an segment on Alameda and asked the FAWR to be an affiliate of theirs.\nMember deHaan asked how successful the mating pairs have been up to this point. Ms. Feeney\nsummarized the progress of the lease tern colony, explaining that Alameda has the sixth largest\ncolony in the world, but that we are isolated from the other colonies (most in Southern Ca).\nMember Matarrese really enjoyed the pictures included in the presentation and appreciates the\nfragility of the ecosystem of the site. He discussed another upcoming item on the Agenda, Site\n1, an uncharacterized waste pit which is adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge, and the importance of\naddressing the clean-up issues and how it relates to the water-borne life of the refuge. Mr.\nSaddler added that once construction begins at Alameda Point, it would inevitably impact how\nthe clean-up is managed.\nVice Chair Tam asked if they have seen some of the latest conceptual plans from the VA. Mr.\nSaddler said that he and Ms. Feeney met with the VA and were able to see three versions of\nproposed plans. They were concerned that the new concepts proposes the area between the\nproposed Golf course and the refuge site as a buffer zone, but also expressed their desire to stay\nengaged with the VA and keep things in perspective as to what's best for Alameda, what's best\nfor the Veterans and what's best for the wildlife. Member Matarrese clarified that the VA is a\nfed-to-fed transfer, and not the Alameda development.\nMember deHaan recommended the Board receive periodic updates of the VA's proposals and\nrequested a briefing. Member Matarrese agreed and asked whether the updates can be obtained\nofficially. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that there is no official proposal\navailable yet from the VA. Member Matarrese requested that when there is an official proposal,\nhe would like the Board to see it. The Board agreed.\n3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - oral report\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, reported that the VA is\ncurrently engaged in informal Section 7 consultations with the USF&W and have a potential site\nplan, but there are no additional details beyond that.\nMember deHaan asked what role the ARRA would have, since the property would be a fed-to-\nfed transfer. Ms. Potter explained that it has been properly characterized as a fed-to-fed transfer,\nand, as such, the VA would work directly with the Navy on the conveyance of the property. This\nopportunity is one that the VA would be interested in exploring because the property would be\nconveyed to them for free; different than the conveyance we're involved in for the remainder of\nthe property. ARRA and staff would be involved at an informal level, but because the\ndevelopment is adjacent, we have interest in some issues like the submerged lands adjacent to\ndry lands. Ms Potter stated that staff would continue to consult and work with the VA, the\nUSF&W, and the Navy, but key issues are hammered out at the federal level.\nMember deHaan discussed his understanding that the USF&W made a claim to property, said\nthat they would be the governing body and provide financially, but they could not fulfill their\ncommitment and this is why the Navy is looking for a different avenue. Ms. Potter explained\nthat, in the USF&W's own words, \"the status of refuge is at an impasse\"; that they are unable to\nreconcile their issues with the Navy regarding a fed-to-fed transfer, and that their key concern is\nfuture liability regarding environmental cleanup. They have not perfected the transfer\narrangement, so the Navy has been in discussions with the VA in lieu of USF&W. Because\nthere are endangered species on the property, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-10-03", "page": 3, "text": "consultation to make sure that whatever the VA does, they cannot harm the endangered species.\nMs. Potter clarified that the USF&W are not pursuing ownership of the property at this time and\nthat if the Navy goes forward with the property transfer to the VA, the Navy will retain clean-up\nobligations for the property.\nVice Chair Tam questioned what SunCal's follow-up with the VA has been to this point\nregarding the site, if their dialogue with the VA includes potential alternative sites. Ms Potter\nresponded that SunCal has had one additional follow-up meeting with the VA and that SunCal is\naware of their need ultimately, and that this issue is a key item on SunCal's Project Master\nSchedule.\nIt is noted that Chair Johnson arrived at this point in the discussion (7:52 p.m.).\nMs. Potter gave her update on SunCal, including that the first two community meetings have\nbeen scheduled, the first on 10/24 at Mastick Senior Center. The agenda for this meeting\nincludes introduction of SunCal and their partners to the community, framing the project and\ntheir approach to the project, and site constraints. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled on\n12/12 at the O'club to solicit feedback from community regarding the range of development\nscenarios, and their key focus to continue surveying property and preparing to do sampling - the\ntechnical work to support the land-planning effort.\nMember Matarrese asked if we're on track with zoning issues. Ms. Potter explained that she has\nprepared an off-agenda report discussing that the status of the public trust designation protects us\nmore than locking in zoning, and recommends that staff not do anything ahead of the entitlement\nprocess. FM requested that this item be agendized.\nChair Johnson asked if the mortgage crisis is a risk to SunCal. Ms. Potter said that SunCal has\nreassured they are not impacted by that crisis. Chair Johnson wants to be kept updated of\nSunCal's activities regarding the project.\nThis report was for information only. No motion or action was required.\n3-C. Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation\nRestoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area).\nMs. Potter summarized a letter sent to the EPA requesting additional investigative work be done\nat IR Site 1. She explained that trenching activities are concluded at the site and key concerns\nidentified: no intact drums were found, but the waste had low-level radioactivity. The cost of\ndigging up and hauling off the landfill is very expensive so staff's recommendation is to take the\nNavy's approach outlined in their draft ROD to cap the landfill.\nMember Matarrese had deep concerns about the radioactive and hazardous waste and\ngroundwater migration of the contaminants out of the landfill. Dr. Peter Russell addressed the\nconcerns and explained that the landfill was closed and no waste put in for 50 years, with a good\ndeal of monitoring and investigation, it appears not to be any migration of contents. Dr. Russell\nfurther explained that 11 trenches were dug and there were no drums or containers whatsoever,\nexcept for one broken which was consistent with the Navy's supposition that what drums were\nplaced in there were crushed. It is unlikely that there are many, if any, drums. Another issue\nwas the volume of waste - the Navy over-estimated by a factor of two or three, so accordingly,\nthey inflated the cost by two or three. Their feasibility study did not consider radioactivity in\nlandfill, and now that there is, we do not have an argument that the cost for the removal is at the\nNavy's estimate.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-10-03", "page": 4, "text": "Member Matarrese motioned to send a letter that is policy in nature requesting that the\nNavy excavate and remove the contents of the radioactive contaminated landfill, and\ndispense with institutional controls on surrounding properties that are deemed to be\ncleaned.\nThe motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5\nayes, o noes, and 0 abstentions.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\nThe RAB met regularly and again on Sept. 28th to discuss six alternatives for the draft feasibility\nstudy for IR Site 32. Their recommendation endorses a chemical oxidation and institutional\ncontrols for that site to alleviate groundwater contaminations.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nnone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese was contacted by a member of boating industry regarding development in\nJack London Square that will displace their annual boat show in 2009. The representatives are\ninterested in another venue for the boat show and are looking at Alameda Point. Member\nMatarrese expressed that this would be a great thing to pursue a boat show of that magnitude,\nand that it would be an economic boom for our city. He requested a report when/if this can be\ndone.\nExecutive Director, Debra Kurita, said that ARRA staff has been in discussions with the\nrepresentatives of the boat show and will update the Board with information.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nHave Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-11-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, November 7, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 3, 2007.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of October 16, 2007.\n2-C. Approve a Five-Year Sublease with the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) at Alameda\nPoint.\n2-D. Approve a Ground Lease at No Cost for Kids Chalk Art Project.\n2-E. Approve General Release and Compromise Agreement with The Reuse People of America,\nInc.\nMember deHaan pulled Item 2-B. (Oct. 16 Minutes) for discussion. The balance of the\nConsent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member\nGilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, o abstentions.\nItem 2-B: Member deHaan pulled this item because he wanted to clarify the action that occurred\nat the Special Meeting of Oct. 16th. He specifically addressed the item discussed at this meeting,\nItem 3-A. Establish an Alameda Point Advisory Task Force. The discussion that he understood\nwas that one member from each of the boards and commissions plus the Housing Commission\nwould be selected and that the individuals would report back to their commissions and boards.\nAt the recommendation of the Executive Director, Debra Kurita, Member Gilmore suggested we\nhold approval of Item 2-B until Item 3-C (AP Advisory Task Force: Clarification of Roles and\nResponsibilities) is discussed. Member deHaan said since he placed Item 3-C on the agenda, he\nwould pull it if Item 2-B is clarified.\nChair Johnson stated that 3-C should not be pulled and should be discussed because more\ndirection needs to be provided. Member Matarrese agreed with member deHaan to correct the\nminutes first, and agreed with Chair Johnson to keep Item 3-C on the agenda for discussion.\nDeputy Executive Director, David Brandt, further clarified that in addition to the Housing\nCommission member, that there would be a representative from the Climate Protection Task\nForce as well. All Board members agreed.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-11-07", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Johnson recommended keeping Item 3-C on the agenda, affirmed by staff that it would be\nhelpful for further discussion.\nVice Chair Tam requested a correction of the 10/16 minutes to reflect that it was Member\nMatarrese who seconded the motion, and not her.\nMember Gilmore motioned for approval of Item 2-B with the following corrections: to\ninclude full complement of the Boards and Commissions with one member representing his\nor her Board/Commission's position and reporting back to that board or commission, and\nthis includes the Climate Protection Task Force and Housing Commission representatives;\nand to reflect that Member Matarrese seconded the motion, and not Vice Chair Tam. The\nmotion was seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: 5\nayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.\nThere were two speakers on Item 2-D (Kids Chalk Art Project), Mark Wagner, who thanked the\nBoard for waiving the fee for the use of Alameda Point for the project; and Trish Spencer,\nPresident of the Alameda PTA Council, who gave a brief explanation of the project, which\nspotlights art and brings art to the students and families of Alameda schools. They plan to draw\nthe largest chalk project in the world.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Proclamation for Ken Hansen, Community Co-Chair of the FISCA RAB.\nChair Johnson proclaimed Nov. 7, 2007 as Ken Hansen Day in the City of Alameda, and\npresented the Proclamation to Mr. Hansen. Mr. Jim Sweeney also presented Mr. Hansen with a\nLetter of Appreciation from the US Navy, signed by Laura Duchnak, Director of the BRAC\nProgram Office. Mr. Mike Quillen of ERM presented a letter of appreciation and recognition to\nthe ARRA Board to honor Mr. Hansen for his contribution and achievements to the ARRA and\nthe City of Alameda.\n3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief project update:\nSunCal held its first community meeting on October 24th. There were over 200 members of the\ncommunity in attendance. SunCal introduced their team and gave a presentation which focused\non various constraints and work they have done so far. There were various technical consultants\non hand, and following the formal remarks, there was opportunity for the community to talk on a\none-on-one basis with the consultants. SunCal is preparing for a briefing with the Navy on 11/15\nregarding their progress to date. The next meeting is scheduled on 12/13 at the O'Club at 6:30\np.m.\nAt the 10/16 Special ARRA meeting, there was a request that staff prepare a stakeholder process\nfor involving the folks that have special interest in Alameda Point. An off-agenda regarding this\nitem was distributed end of last week.\nChair Johnson asked if we are meeting the benchmarks in the process and keeping the timeline.\nMs Potter replied that so far, yes, and that SunCal has two mandatory milestones on the near\nhorizon, the first is March '08 when they have to submit a development concept, along with\ninfrastructure plan and business plan; and the next milestone is May '08 where they are required\nto submit their draft master plan application.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-11-07", "page": 3, "text": "from the Planning Dept.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, wanted clarification on the task force member role\nto represent their board or commission.\nMember Matarrese discussed that the memo distributed by Andrew Thomas regarding the roles\nand responsibilities accurately captured the intent and purpose - which was to increase the\nfamiliarity with all the boards and commissions of the plan when it's finished, so they are not\nseeing it for the first time. The task force is responsible for two things: 1) report back, and 2)\nadvise SunCal on positions their boards and commissions have taken. It is a very clean and\nefficient way of getting to the point of having the boards and commissions versed in the plan as it\nis presented to them.\nVice Chair Tam expressed her concerns about the members of the task force being asked to\nrefrain from speaking at the Oct. 24th meeting until their roles and responsibilities were clarified.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-11-07", "page": 4, "text": "She explained that it is not her view that we should deprive the advisory boardmembers of their\nconstitutional right to speak out or constrain them from sharing their views and experience. We\nchose these people because of their expertise and their broad experience in Alameda and outside\n- and that these boards and commissions have chosen them to help lead the discussion. It's\nappropriate for them, once they're on the advisory task force, to interact productively with\nSunCal to ask questions, and not simply be a human tape recorder.\nMember Matarrese stated that his explanation of the roles of the task force members does not\npreclude them from asking questions. Member deHaan added that the liaison to SunCal should\nbe staff, and not the task force member.\nAndrew Thomas clarified that the advisory task force is an ad-hoc group, not a separate formal\ncommission. The task force meetings are the public workshop meetings - everything is publicly\nnoticed, there are no plans to hold \"task force\" meetings separate from the workshops.\nSpeaker, Bill Smith, spoke about various topics.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\nMember Matarrese was not able to attend the last RAB meeting and did not have a report.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nnone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan requested further discussion on the Coast Guard Housing Surplus process be\nplaced on the next Regular ARRA agenda.\nMember Matarrese also requested a report on all the fields at Coast Guard Housing. Deputy\nExecutive Director, David Brandt, stated that an off-agenda is in preparation regarding this issue.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJames Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-12-05", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, December 5, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 7, 2007.\nMember Gilmore clarified that the following correction should be made in the minutes\nregarding Item 3-C. Alameda Point Advisory Task Force: that the Board and Commission\nrepresentatives would not only convey their Board or Commission's position to SunCal at\nthe public meetings, but also, they could speak for themselves if they made it clear that they\nwere speaking for themselves and not on behalf of their Board or Commission. Member\nMatarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar with the clarification made by\nMember Gilmore, seconded by member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5\nayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Presentation by the Veterans Affairs on the VA Project Development Plans at\nAlameda Point.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Claude\nHutchison, Director of Asset Enterprise Management, and Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset Manager,\nof the VA who made a powerpoint presentation.\nMr. Hutchison gave a summary profile of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. The VA is the second\nlargest agency within the Federal system, second only to the Department of Defense (DOD).\nThey are essentially the alumni association for the DOD and serve the needs and requirements of\n24 million living Americans who served our country. They have an annual budget projected to\nbe $84 billion. There are three major areas of responsibilities and activities: 1) Veterans Health\nAdministration - to serve the medical needs and requirements of those enrolled in the VA\nsystem. Currently 8 million enrollees, with 155 acute care hospitals around the country and 900\noutpatient clinics, 2) Veterans Benefit Administration - financial services ranging from real\nestate loans to insurance and educational requirements, and 3) National Cemetery Administration\n- runs 125 national shrines as final internment for Veterans.\nTheir hope is to place a combination of all three at Alameda Point - a significant, multi-purpose\noutpatient clinic, offices for the Veterans Benefit Administration, and an above-ground\ncolumbarium.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-12-05", "page": 2, "text": "The entire land mass that the VA hopes to have transferred to them by the Navy is approximately\n597 acres. They envision developing about 113 acres concentrated in the north east area of the\nproperty. Mr. Hutchison further explained that the VA is still in negotiations with the USF&W\nbecause of the Lease Tern and California Brown Pelican whose habitat is within the area they\nhope to control.\nMr. Jaynes concluded the presentation with an overview of the property area, stating that\nAlameda Point is strategically located to serve the Veterans of the greater Bay Area, and in\naddition, it is ideally and centrally located to serve the Veterans of northern Alameda County.\nHe indicated on the map which area was the federal-to-federal parcel at the far west end of\nAlameda Point. It primarily consists of what was the airfield and landfill for NAS. The parcel\ndoes not include the Northwest Territories, which is still going to the City of Alameda. It also\ndoes not include any submerged lands. The 579-acre parcel runs from the west side of hangar\nrow all the way down to the bay, and follows the perimeter shoreline all the way around the tip.\nWhen it gets to the Northwest Territories, it comes back down to hangar row.\nMr. Jaynes presented the VA's site development plan which they have been working on for 18\nmonths. They plan to only develop 113 acres, and the remaining 466 acres will be left\nundeveloped. The VA's planned development is a circumference of about 1900 feet from the\nLease Tern colony, based on the closest structure on hangar row, to assure the protection of the\nLease Tern and the Brown Pelican and so the VA and these endangered species can co-exist on\nthe site.\nTheir plans include an outpatient clinic on the far east end which would replace the two facilities\ncurrently in Oakland. The clinic will be approximately 80-90,000 sq. ft. and be a full-service\nambulatory care clinic which will not have any beds. The VA would like to develop an above-\nground cemetery on the 50+ acres on the far west end of the parcel. There are approximately\n390,000 Veterans in the greater Bay Area that would use the cemetery services, and for the\nclinic, they envision that it would serve approximately 7,000 of the 40,000 northern Alameda\nCounty Veterans. Also included in the clinic would be a small clinic that is run by the Air Force\n(David Grant Medical Center) that would treat active duty and active duty dependents in the Bay\nArea. The third development plan includes land reserved for \"enhanced use\", a public-private\npartnership where a developer comes in and builds a facility on under-utilized VA land. The VA\nwas envisioning as their enhanced use partner a civilian in-patient hospital, which they believe is\na compatible need with their outpatient clinic.\nChair Johnson asked how many in-patient hospital beds the VA would anticipate be used by\nVeterans. Mr. Jaynes replied that approximately 10 - 20 would be used for Veterans. Member\nMatarrese mentioned that there is already a hospital here in Alameda that can be partnered with\nthe VA. Mr. Jaynes explained that the plans for the civilian hospital are still conceptual. The\nenhanced use plans also include two structures for medical office buildings, which would house\ncivilian doctors and administration. Also included is a small nature center which the VA would\nbuild to house fish and wildlife services and employees on the site to work with the Lease Terns,\nas well as EBRPD rangers if an agreement can be worked out with them. The VA would also\nbuild a bay trail on the property, limited to the far west side of the parcel in order to protect the\nendangered species.\nMr. Jaynes presented the VA's timeline for development. They have been in consultation with\nUSF&W for almost two years, and are currently in negotiations with the Navy to develop an\nMOU which will lay out the transfer terms. It is the VA and Navy's plan that the final transfer,\nincluding the transfer documents, will be complete by Fall of 2008. In addition, the VA is\ncurrently conducting a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment\nfor transfer, and a biological assessment. They have plans to do a NEPA environmental impact\nstudy which is funded and ready to go.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-12-05", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Jaynes explained the VA's two major construction projects, one for the clinic, one for the\ncemetery. Both projects are congressionally authorized and appropriated, if approved for the\nbudget, design will begin on the clinic in 2010, with construction completed by spring/summer\n2012. The columbarium is on the same timeline, but could be phased and opened sooner. The\nenhanced use lease is in the concept application process and will go to the Secretary of the VA in\nthe spring, and if approved, the enhanced use process will begin in late spring and work toward\nhaving a partner and open in 2012.\nMember Tam thanked Mr. Jaynes and Mr. Hutchison for the presentation and had some\nquestions: 1) on the discussions the VA has had with the Navy regarding environmental clean-up\ncosts, 2) has there been progress in the VA's coordination with SunCal, and 3) the VA's role and\nrelationship with the Alameda Healthcare District.\nMr. Hutchison explained that the VA has had ongoing dialogue with the Alameda District\nhospital and will be meeting with the new CEO tomorrow morning (Dec. 6) to continue that\ndialogue and they are very interested in maintaining that relationship with the Alameda\nHealthcare District. He further explained that the VA has issued an RFP for outpatient services,\nand that the Alameda Healthcare District has responded. A final determination has not yet been\nmade.\nAs a response to Member Tam's first question about the clean-up costs, Mr. Hutchison discussed\nthat the Navy is responsible for clean-up. The VA's MOU with the Navy will set forth the terms\nand conditions that outline the requirements of the Navy to bring it up to appropriate commercial\nstandards. The VA does not want to take on liability for contamination over which they had no\ncontrol. The inter-agency transfer will set forth clearly the Navy's requirements with no dispute\nbetween the VA and the Navy as to those requirements. He emphasized that the VA has a\nsignificant due diligence process.\nMember Tam mentioned that since the VA is the alumni association to the Navy, that they may\nhave a stronger tie to them than the ARRA does. Mr. Hutchison explained that the Navy is well\naware of their obligation and is prepared to live up to it.\nMr. Jaynes discussed the coordination efforts with SunCal, stating that most of their\ncommunication with SunCal since their last meeting with them has been through Debbie Potter.\nHe said that he has been playing phone-tag with the project manager for SunCal, Pat Keliher, but\nwill continue to strive to communicate with them to make sure their plans are in coordination\nwith the ARRA's. Mr. Hutchison thanked Member Tam for being the catalyst to bringing\nSunCal and the VA together in a joint cooperation going forward.\nChair Johnson wanted to clarify whether residential units were still part of the VA's development\nplan. Mr. Hutchison confirmed that residential units were never part of their plan. Member\ndeHaan discussed his concerns about the budget appropriations and the VA's cost for their\ndevelopment plans. Mr. Hutchison stated that the budget approval cycle was FY '10 and the\ndollar amount for the hospital is in the $50M range, and considerably less for the columbarium.\nThey are confident that their proposal will be well received by congress and the Dept. of\nVeteran's Affairs. Member deHaan also asked about the status of their coordination efforts with\nSunCal. Mr. Hutchison reaffirmed what Mr. Jaynes had said about their intent to maintain\ndialogue with SunCal.\nChair Johnson called the speakers, first Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the\nLease Terns and transportation issues. The next speaker, Mark Chandler, Commissioner of the\nAlameda County Veterans Affairs Commission, spoke in support of the VA's plan to develop the\noutpatient clinic at Alameda Point. He discussed the status quo of Veterans having to travel to\nMartinez, Travis AFB, and Mare Island for healthcare.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-12-05", "page": 4, "text": "Another speaker, Leora Feeney, Boardmember of the Golden Gate Audubon Society and Friends\nof the Alameda Wildlife (FAWR), stated her appreciation for the cordiality given by the VA\nregarding their proposal. She stated that all of them support Veterans in a huge way, and also\nsupport wildlife and open space and opportunities for our children to experience nature. Ms.\nFeeney discussed her concerns on specific issues of the VA presentation, mainly the \"circle\"\nconcept (1900 feet distance from the nearest hangar). She's concerned that any development that\nplaces a barrier between the Lease Tern colony and the water would present a problem, as the\nLease Terns do not fly over buildings. They would not be able to get to the water to forage. Ms.\nFeeney's other strong objection is the VA's unwillingness to accept the water around the refuge,\ntogether with the land, including the island breakwater where the brown pelicans roost. If the VA\naccepts the land and develops that northern portion of it, it seems reasonable, but there is a need\nto protect the foraging waters of the Lease Terns and the island breakwater for those endangered\nspecies. She emphasized the need for accountability to protect these things, and stated that if the\nUSF&W does not have it, nor the VA, she's concerned about who will accept the responsibility.\nChair Johnson asked the VA what their intention is with regard to Ms. Feeney's concerns about\nthe water. Mr. Hutchison stated that it is envisioned that the water area would go to the master\ndeveloper, SunCal, and that the VA has never coveted that water. Deputy Executive Director,\nDavid Brandt, corrected Mr. Hutchison's statement by explaining that the area is Tidelands\nproperty, so it would be the ARRA or the City that would hold title to the property, and not\nSunCal.\nThe next speaker was Eli Saddler, Conservation Director for the Golden Gate Audubon Society.\nHe discussed further the concerns of Ms. Feeney, and agreed that they support the VA. He\nwould like them to go forward with their development plans, but just not at the Alameda Point\nsite. One of their primary concerns is that the VA's plan contradicts the existing biological\nopinion that was developed when USF&W originally requested the property as a refuge. There\nwas a minimum acreage required for the California Lease Tern which was the entire area\nsectioned off, not including the northern-most portion, which was going to the City and was to be\ndeveloped as a buffer zone. The VA's plans would be inside the buffer zone of the area that has\nalready been designated as the critical habitat for the species. They do not think that it is\nbiologically defensible to draw a circle of 1900 feet around the colony, it is unrealistic to think\nthat the birds will obey and stay in that circle. They use the whole area, including areas where\nthe VA has already planned to put their hospital. Mr. Saddler also further discussed his concern\nabout the water area, which was also included in the original biological opinion, which stated\nthat the area to the south was needed for foraging for both species. He emphasized their concern\nabout whether the VA's plan was biologically feasible without very serious mitigation that\nwould have to be done ahead of any construction, mitigation meaning having an alternative site\nfor the Lease Terns to go to, and there was no discussion of this mitigation. It is their\nunderstanding that the USF&W would have some kind of requirement that would include\nmitigation. The problem is, however, that there really is no other location for the Lease Terns to\ngo. The VA plans could potentially jeopardize Alameda's very significant Lease Tern colony.\nMr. Saddler also discussed his concerns about the VA's NEPA process and whether it is legally\ndefensible. The transfer of the parcel is for a purpose, and if there is a new biological opinion\nthat contradicts a pre-existing one, this places the VA's development plans on shaky ground,\nlegally.\nChair Johnson thanked all the speakers and Mr. Hutchison for coming in from Washington, DC\nto make the VA's presentation. Member deHaan asked whether the VA looked at other\nopportunities at Alameda Point. Mr. Hutchison clarified that their discussions have been with\nthe Navy, and that the Navy came to them, unable to agree to terms with the USF&W and was\ngoing to dispose of the property, and asked whether the VA had an interest in taking it over.\nTheir relationship to the parcel is a direct result of the Navy soliciting their interest. Mr. Jaynes\nadded that the VA had looked at the older Coast Guard Housing property, but felt that it wasn't\nlarge enough to satisfy the VA's needs for a medical clinic as well as a columbarium.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-12-05", "page": 5, "text": "Member Matarrese expressed his appreciation for the presentation as it quelled various rumors\nabout the VA's interest in the property. It's good for the ARRA and for the public to hear a\npresentation live from officials of the VA. Member Matarrese asked if they would take back\nwith them a couple considerations: 1) that he does not share their optimism regarding the Navy's\ncommitment to do clean-up. He asked that they have the same demands as the ARRA does\nregarding clean-up, and to accept the land clean, especially if it would be the final resting place\nfor our Veterans, and 2) explore to the maximum the opportunity to work with the Alameda\nHealthcare District. A competing private hospital would be to the detriment of the hospital that\nAlameda taxpayers support.\nMember deHaan requested that the Alameda Healthcare District make a presentation to the\nARRA regarding their interest in the VA project. Chair Johnson stated that they will invite the\nAlameda Healthcare District to make a presentation to the ARRA when they are ready to do so.\n3-B. Update on the Former Coast Guard Housing Property.\nDebbie Potter gave an update on the North Housing parcel, specifically on the temporary license\nagreement/lease for estuary park, the exploration of a possible short-term leasing program, and\nthe screening process underway for the homeless accommodation and public benefit conveyance.\nStaff has been working with the Navy on the short-term lease for estuary park, some sticking\npoints involve environmental remediation, but a short term lease agreement is planned to be\nbrought back to the ARRA in January '08. Staff determined that it was not feasible to have a\nshort-term leasing program for the surplus units. Regarding the screening process, on Nov. 5,\nthe Navy published their notice of surplus property in the Federal register, which triggered the\nARRA's obligation to notify the public that the property is available for screening and we are\ncurrently in the middle of the process. There is a public information workshop scheduled for\ntomorrow (Dec. 6) to brief interested parties on the screening process, and to take them on a tour\nof the property. Notices of Interest (NOI) for both the homeless accommodation and the public\nbenefit conveyance will be due to the City on February 29, 2008. Those notices will be\nevaluated working with HUD and the Navy, and ultimately we will go through a public process\nof amending the Community Reuse Plan to reflect the accommodations and public benefit\nconveyances that may result from this process.\n3-C. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.\nDebbie Potter gave an update on the Alameda Point project. A meeting with the Navy originally\nscheduled to take place in November was rescheduled to December 12th The next SunCal\ncommunity meeting is scheduled on December 13th at the O'Club at 6:30 p.m, with another\npublic meeting scheduled on January 30, 2008.\nThere was one speaker, Bill Smith.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\nMember Matarrese will attend the meeting tomorrow (12/6) and will have a report in January.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speaker slips.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-12-05", "page": 6, "text": "6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nnone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-01-02", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, January 2, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 7:33 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 5, 2007.\n2-B. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Agreement with Russell Resources for\nEnvironmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point for 12 Months in an Amount not to\nexceed $117,500.\n2-C. Approve Sublease for American Bus Repair, LLC at Alameda Point.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Quarterly Update of Project Master\nSchedule Prepared by SCC Alameda Point LLC.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a quick update of\nAlameda Point activities. On 12/12, SunCal met with the Navy to discuss their due diligence and\nprogress on the project. On 12/13, SunCal conducted their second community meeting with over\n200 community residents and business people in attendance. The community members\nparticipated in small workgroups and identified pros and cons of two broadly defined concepts\nfor Alameda Point. SunCal will take the information and feedback from this meeting to put to\nuse for the next community meeting. Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Project\nManager for the Alameda Point Project, to give the first quarterly update of the Project Master\nSchedule.\nMr. Keliher summarized past public meetings, explaining that the public would like more\nspecific feedback on multiple planning concepts. SunCal has aggregated most of the information\nand feedback and will present this to staff. To update the master schedule -- originally, SunCal's\npretense was that they would move forward with the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC),\nbut over the course of the last few months, due to constraints, the PDC is not feasible. SunCal\nhas communicated this to the Navy, to the public, and to staff, and the Project Master Schedule\nhas been updated. Most of schedule triggers project description, which is still in process and will\ntake several more months, but does not affect the two-year ENA period. Mr. Keliher discussed\nthat the City hired an independent peer review team to evaluate SunCal's results and this peer", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-01-02.pdf"}