2006-01-04 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
. ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Wednesday, January 4, 2006
Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by
one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Board or a member of the public.
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 14, 2005.
2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 7, 2005.
2-C. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 5, 2005.
2 -D. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 7, 2005.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
3-B. Recommendation to Approve: 1) A Sixth Amendment to Agreement with Russell.
Resources Extending the Term Six Months and Adding $40,000 to the Budget for
Environmental Consulting Services within the Master Developer Footprint at Alameda
Point and 2) a Fifth Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources Adding $36,000 to
the Budget for Environmental Consulting Services within the "Northwest Territories" at
Alameda Point.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from. Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
ARRA Agenda - January 4, 2006 Page 2
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
7. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is
scheduled for Wednesday, February 1, 2006.
Notes:
■ Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749 -5800 at
least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
■ Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, July 14, 2005
The meeting convened at 6 :25 p.rn. with Member Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 6 :45 p.m.)
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matan-ese, Boardmember, dmember, City of Alameda
After the Pledge of Allegiance Member Matarrese motioned to move the Closed Session (Item
3 -A) to the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Member dellaan and passed by
the following voice vote: Ayes 4; Noes — 0; Abstentions — 0.
2. Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items Only
None.
3. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
3 -A. Property:
Negotiating parties:
Under negotiation:
Alameda Naval Air Station
ARRA, U.S. Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners
Price and Terms
This item was moved to the end of the agenda.
4. PROCLAMATION
4-A. Proclamation to members of the APAC for their dedication and unwavering commitment
to the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore addressed the audience and APAC members. She spoke about how APAC has
helped the community understand the challenges and issues regarding Alameda Point. Member
Gilmore then read the proclamation and handed one out to each of the APAC members.
APAC Chair Lee Perez thanked the ARRA Board for the opportunity to serve over the last
several years — he spoke about how pleased they (the APAC) were with the response to the Reuse
Plan & the participation from the community. He also mentioned that it's been a long haul over
the last 12 years since they first started and they were pleased with the outcome so far. Member
deHaan, expressed his gratitude for the leadership and dedication that Chair Perez and all the
1
other members of APAC contributed toward the planning efforts of Alameda Point. Members
Daysog, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson (who just arrived at this point) also expressed their
gratitude.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of. March 2, 2005.
5 -B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 6, 2005.
5 -C. Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources extending the term for 90-
days and adding $54,000 to the budget for environmental consulting services.
5 -D. Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
5-E. Recommendation to amend the approved FY 2005 -2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000
for repairs to the Al Dewitt O' Club,
Member Gilmore motioned to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions
0.
6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6 -A. Presentation of the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point
establishing land use goals, transportation strategy and historic preservation strategy.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, discussed the updates on the Conveyance process
with the Navy and the status of the budget. The key topic discussed was the progress with
planning efforts regarding the PDC and introduced the document to the Board for their review.
Mr. Proud advised that there are continuing discussions with the Navy on disposal strategies and
constraints with the property; and that we're moving forward with the Navy regarding a conveyance
agreement. He discussed the community meetings and the success in each of the workshops to tackle
specific topics that helped produce this draft document (the PDC). He further discussed issues at
Alameda Point (AP) about Navy conveyance and the land planning process.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, focused on the Community Reuse Plan and the draft
PDC. He discussed what the community's expectations for the development of AP and what the
real priorities are. He advised that the PDC was an integration of "new" with the "old"
(Community Reuse Plan). Mr. Thomas explained the several Appendices of the PDC, which
included the Transportation Strategy, specifically the Broadway /Jackson feasibility study; and the
Historic Preservation element.
2
Regarding the Historic Preservation, Mr. Thomas discussed that there was a lot of community
involvement with questions regarding which buildings and homes to keep and which to get rid
of. The residential portion of the plan included 3000 new units: homes for sale and rentals.
There were several speakers who discussed various topics related to the PDC, including:
- Conversion of the naval base - Measure A
- Adequate school facilities at AP.
- Transportation planning
- Solar energy equipment
- Keeping the BOQ building for Veterans or Senior Housing
-- Historic District Preservation
- Housing for all income levels
7. ORAL REPORT
7 -A. Oral report from APAC.
No oral report.
7 -B. oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilrnember Matarrese discussed topics from the last RAB meeting, including clean-up
methods, and how petroleum is being extracted. He also gave an update on the BCT activities
and the schedule for the site management program, which lists all the clean -up activities.
8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speaker slips.
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None
10. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:21 P.M.
Respectfully subm.i tied,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7 :29 p.m. with Member Daysog presiding.
. ROLL CALL
Present: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank MatarTese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 19, 2005
2 -B. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to direct PM Realty Group, acting as
Property Manager, to enter into a contract with Manson Construction Company to dredge
The Alameda Point channel in an amount not to exceed $575,000.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 3; Noes — 0;
Abstentions - O.
3. Presentation
3 -A Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager gave a brief update on the AP conveyance
activities. There is a meeting scheduled with the Navy on September 29th to discuss, and come
to a resolution, on the `divide' in the analysis of the value of the property. The outcome of that
meeting ill be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting on October. 5t`. Mr. Proud
g p
introduced Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, to give an update on the Preliminary
Development Concept (PDC).
Mr. Thomas discussed staff's review of comments received from the public and from the ARRA
Board (of the July 14th meeting) and efforts to use this information to make revisions to the PDC.
The revisions include addressing and clarifying a number of issues, such as its role, its purpose,
and the Next Steps to clarify Historic Preservation issues. The document will also be revised to
include an additional appendix in response to some of the requests for more financial information
- the financial trade offs that are embedded within the PDC. The plan is to present the revised
draft PDC to the ARRA Board and the public at the October. 5t ' ARRA Board meeting.
Revisions to the document will be in a red - lined, strikeout version so the public can very clearly
see where changes were made.
1
Mr. Thomas announced that we received a $250,000 grant Metropolitan Transportation
Commission Grant, a land planning grant to help with next phases of the planning for Alameda
Point, particularly around the transit center. There is also progress toward a memorandum of
agreement with BART on a $485,000. grant, a federal earmark that was received over a year ago
We have been meeting with representatives from the Navy and the Local Historic Preservation
Community to continue the discussion on the Historic Preservation issues that were generated by
the PDC, and that is in the context of the Section 106 consultation which is really a Navy lead
effort. A briefing to discuss the PDC and the 106 consultation process with the Historical
Advisor y Board on Alameda Point is planned for October 6th. City Staff has also been invited to
attend a p
League of Women's Voters workshop on September 29th and November 15th.
Member Daysog called 2 speakers, Bill. Smith, who spoke about various topics, and Neil Garcia
Sinclair of Cybertran who gave a quick update on the Cybertran/ University of California/BART
coalition and the proposal of establishing a research center in transportation energy at Alameda
Point.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
S. ORAL REPORTS
5 -A Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese was unable to attend last week's RAB meeting, so there is no report.
6. ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker slip, Bill. Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the VA,
development at Alameda Point; and various unrelated topics as well.
7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Daysog welcomed the new City Manager, Debra Kurita, who is also the Executive
Director of the ARRA, to her first ARRA meeting.
S. ADJOURMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
rma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
2
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
The meeting convened at 7 :14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmernber, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Report from the Executive Director recommending the Approval of Alameda Power &
Telecom Sublease at Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Tony Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -- 5: Noes — 0;
Abstentions --
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Presentation of the Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development concept (PDC) — A
Planning Feasibility Study for the Redevelopment and Reuse of the Former Alameda Naval
Air Station.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the revised PDC, and discussed what the major
revisions were, including: alternative plans approaches, various constraints affecting the layout and
design, and a clarification in the executive summary that the PDC is a feasibility study, and not the
final "plan ".
The revised PDC also included expanded discussion regarding Measure A issues, and a good
foundation for a solid transportation strategy. Mr. Thomas further summarized the revisions, stating
that the phasing program is conceptual and there was text added to include information on civic
community type facilities, churches and plazas, etc. emphasizing that the general plan calls for these
kinds of uses. There were a number of revisions to the Next Steps chapter, primarily the
environmental review and entitlement process for the first phase should our master developer choose
to proceed.
Chair Johnson called up the several speakers who discussed the following topics:
- concern about the insufficiency of neighborhood centers
1
- a representative from AAPS requested a reuse study be included in the PDC for the historic
buildings
- a representative from the APC expressed their interest in continuing to be involved in the
development plan process
- a representative from Operation Dignity expressed concerns about the Board accepting the
PDC in draft form
- representatives from HOMES and the Sierra Club expressed their appreciation and support
with the progress of the PDC compared to other developments.
Member Matarrese thanked the staff for providing the input and revisions. He agreed with the
speaker who mentioned that the Board should not approve a draft document; and rather, approve a
final document. He would like to see more information on a green standards plan and a plan for
sustainable communities and expressed concern about the word "feasibility study ", afraid it might be
dismissed because it does not "comply" with the PDC. He further stated that the PDC document is
still conceptual. Members Gilmore and Daysog agreed with Member Matarrese's statements.
Member Daysog would like to see more information on the fiscal implications of the PDC, especially
on Phase 11 and Phase III.
Member deHaan reminded folks that there was a community reuse plan prior to this PDC, which
included the development of commercial and industrial spaces to maximize transportation.
Member Matarrese motioned for Council to direct staff to simulate the comments that were made
and produce a final document for approval. He requested the document be in red-line/strikeout
format so that revisions are clearly seen in the document.
City Manager, Debra Kurita, recommended that the draft revisions be text -only to save cost. It was
agreed by all Boardmembers to just bring back the document at the regular ARRA Board meeting in
November; there was no need to make a motion for this action.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, clarified some points to the Board. He stated that the
PDC is a component of the conditional acquisition agreement (CAA) that we have with APCP. Other
components include getting a conveyance agreement structure set forward with the Navy and then
the completion of the preliminary development concept. Based on the timing with regards to
meeting with the Navy, Mr. Proud recommended the revised document be brought back at the
December meeting, instead of November. All Boardmembers accepted this recommendation.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report, as Member Matarrese stated the meeting was the following day.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith spoke about various topics.
2
Alex McElree, Executive Director of Operation Diginity, requested the ARRA Board encourage the
City Council to fulfill the promise they made to Operation Dignity and to the homeless through the
homeless conveyance of the McCain /Feinstein Act and build the 39 -Units (homes).
6. COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7 :18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 16, 2004
2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 2005
2 -C. Approval of the minutes of the Special. Meeting of June 1, 2005
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member dellaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 3; Noes -- 0;
Abstentions —1 (Member Gilmore).
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Presentation of Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the "text - only" changes made to the July 5tt� Draft
p g p
PDC. The changes were made in response to comments heard at the July and October 2005 ARRA
Board meetings. Mr. Thomas summarized the major changes and asked that the ARRA approve the
changes as well as other modifications to the text, and identify final revisions in order to bring a
finalized document back to the Board at its regular meeting in February 2006.
A summary of the changes included:
- clearer description of the purpose of the PDC, identifies it as a planning study and not a
regulatory document without any legally binding effect.
- there is more emphasis and clarity that the plan for Alameda Point is a mixed -use plan,
maintaining financial feasibility and historic preservation.
- recommending work-live ordinance.
1
Changes were made in the Introduction, Land Use and the Next Steps chapters emphasizing that it is
the City's goal to have a sustainable environmentally sensitive development at Alameda Point. The
Next Steps chapter outlines the key issues that are still going to require additional study, particularly
the compromises and trade -offs. There is more description about how the non - Measure A alternative
will be evaluated in the EIR process; and further exploration of maintaining historical preservation,
as well as financial possibilities surrounding the historic buildings. Also included are the next steps
to implementing the Transportation Strategy.
Two appendices, the Transportation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality (Appendix E), were also revised.
Member Gilmore allowed the several speakers to make their statements prior to the Board making
their comments. The speakers discussed various PDC- related topics, including Historic
Preservation concerns regarding the Big Whites and the Hangars; requests for additional buildings
identified for Historic Preservation be placed on the HAB agenda/study list for February, and to
request and Historic Preservation Master Plan and an Adaptive Reuse Study to be done soon, or as
part of the Navy's Section 106 process. Also discussed concerns about the Seaplane Lagoon
development encroachments and non - measure A alternatives. Consideration of Building 3 for the
Neptune Beach Amusement Museum was discussed.
Alameda School Board representative thanked staff and the ARRA board for including the issues of
school facilities in the PDC. Alternatives in Action representative discussed issues regarding the
early termination of their lease and the ARRA' s request of them for removal of a portable building.
Member Daysog asked what were the major changes to Appendix E (Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality). Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that there was clarity added
to the language and that the financial feasibility study done for the first phase will be replicated for
subsequent phases. There will be a better understanding of the financial feasibility and fiscal
neutrality questions once we are clear on the development programs. Member Daysog further
discussed his concern regarding the Measure A and non - Measure A options, and Phase I revenue
generation. Mr. Proud explained that projections made in the document have a built -in fiscal
mitigation payment which will come directly from project proceeds to offset public expenditures and
public revenues that we collect. Member Daysog requested more detail and clarity on the property
taxes for use on a range of services; he also requested a better understanding on the fiscal mitigation
payment and operational issues.
Member deHaan addressed issues in the body of the PDC and, with the consensus of the other board
members, requested several action items to be completed by staff:
1. Expand the paragraph in the Next Steps chapter to elaborate on the Historic Preservation
— what the Navy is doing concurrent with us on their studies.
2. Provide more clarity on the commercial development plan for the 336,000 sq. ft. of
retail and identify the commercial endeavors being pursued.
3. Provide separate analysis (off - agenda) on the HazMat clean -up, scenario of costs
between single family vs. multi family, etc. for financial feasibility.
4. Regarding the timeline and series of studies to be completed on the Historic
2
Preservation: Emphasize the need to get information at the earliest possible date so that
the information could be used in the process of developing a plan which is then
ultimately evaluated in the EIR, and NOT when the final EIR comes out.
5. Appendix E - What would Phase 1 of Fiscal Mitigation payment be? And an
explanation of why we are not contemplating municipal services fee (like Bayport)?
6. Continued emphasis that this "Preliminary" plan document is a step to a "Final" plan.
All Boardmernbers accepted staff recommendation to bring back a Final version of the PDC in
February 2006.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
B oardmember Matarrese reported on the RAB meeting from November because he did not attend the
Dec. meeting (he was attending D.A.R.E.) There was a presentation on the remediation strategies for.
Site 27, between Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Nelson's Marine. There were a wide range of
options (9 remediation strategies), and there was a uniform recommendation and vote to advise the
Navy to use the most efficient and rapid remediation strategy.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Marilyn York, Barbara Bach, and Ken Robles of the Alameda Naval Air Museum spoke about their
proposed 10 -year lease. Chair Johnson advised that they are looking forward to receiving the lease
for review but have not seen it come to the Board yet.
6. COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
Boardrnember Daysog requested the Board address Gail. Greeley's issues regarding Horne Sweet
Horne and moving a portable building. Member Matarrese requested an off - agenda report
addressing this same issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
66;
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
January 4, 2006
TO: Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
SUBJ: Update on Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Background
Attached are the presentation slides for the Alameda Point Update. The following is a brief overview of
each of the topics set forth in the presentation.
Discussion
Navy Negotiations
The Navy and the ARRA have engaged in ongoing negotiations regarding the conveyance terms for
Alameda Point. while the parties have reached general agreement on the phasing of conveyance and
the underlying land uses that serve as the basis for determining the value of the property, there are
several key conveyance terms that are still under discussion. These include:
•`• What will be the structure of any compensation payments to the Navy for the property?
••• When will payments be made and what activities will trigger the payments?
•
❖ How will the environmental remediation responsibilities be divided among the parties?
Once final agreement has been reached on the conveyance terms, they will be memorialized in a term
sheet between the Navy and the ARRA. Toward that end, staff and the Navy have begun work on term
sheet outline for Alameda Point.
Budget
In December 2003, the ARRA issued a $3.5M lease revenue bond to fund the ARRA's obligations
under the Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA) with Alameda Point Community Partners. These
funds were used to bring technical expertise to the ARRA to assist in the conveyance negotiations and
land planning of Alameda Point. The budget outlined in the attached presentation shows that that the
ARRA budgeted approximately $1.46M for conveyance negotiations and approximately $890,000 for
the preparation of the Preliminary Development Concept for Alameda Point. In addition, the budget for
internal ARRA costs is approximately $10M and the budget for contingencies is $147,000.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 4, 2006
Page 2
The ARRA -led predevelopment period was anticipated to run from December 2003 through June 2005,
and based on that timeframe, the original budget was constructed as an 18 month budget. However, as
noted above, the ARRA and the Navy are still negotiating the conveyance terms for Alameda Point and
therefore the current budget reflect changes from June 2005 to account for the additional time associated
with the negotiations. Due to lower than anticipated costs, monies have been reallocated from selected
consultant expenses associated with the conveyance negotiations to offset additional ARRA staff costs
associated with the project's extended timeframe. To date, the ARRA has expended approximately
$2.86M and based on existing contractual obligations, expects to fully expend the total $3.5M bond
allocation. It is important to note that while the contingency budget has generally remained unchanged,
additional delays in the conveyance of the property will erode this balance and exhaust the funds
available for the ARRA-led predevelopment activities.
Preliminary Development Concept
The draft Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) was initially presented to the ARRA Board at its
July 2005 meeting and follow -up presentations occurred at the meetings held in October and in
December 2005. Staff is incorporating the comments received at those public hearings into a final .
version of the PDC, which will be presented to the ARRA Board on February 1, 2006.
Recommendation
This report is for informational purposes only. No action is being requested.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Proud
Alameda Point Project Manager
Attachment: Alameda Point Update presentation slides
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
P
3
CD
-nu
(c)
0
0
CD
CD
0
• • •
13 CD 71
CD 6 CD
73
-fi. c
Cn 0
-%
5 0 0
a) =
1/4‹ -0
oQ.
pi
cp a) < 0 %.<
cp 0
0 CO 0
"zi c =
3 a
(c) <
CD
CD el
:3 a)
0 0 23
o CD
n -0
CD 6
p 0
CD
Ci)
(i)
0
CD
CD
eeq wJej
0 CD
CD
"-C3
CD
c7.
z
1/4‹
D
D
C7
0
CD
1/4‹
n
CD
CD
MININIM
1.1rw!
CD
CD
0
N
(D
Q
CD
3
:D-
CD
CD
1 1
m-10
3
o(0� cp
3 o w
CD -70
:3 a)
1/4‹
3
CD
(7)
0
CD
3
CD
a
cf.)
0
cD
00
>(8
3 co
QZ
O. );-,
:0
(7) D
(1)Z
CD CD
(1)
c:g
CD o'
Ci)
(7)•
Cn
(1)o
o<
:3m
1/4‹
n
CD
CD
3
cn
3
CD
-0
a
0
ca
c:
CD
CD
•
51) oW�
°
�O1)
m
> CD
° 0
0 -41
CD :3 F.+
%.
0
S:1) = (ID
ca
a) >
-111) kul
o ° D
•
5 11 CO 7)
cp 0 0
0 = 51) '&5 tjh
cco 0 0 a. r.-4.
17)
CD m� C-- QC�
I° 0 =
0 r3
oar ivD
cn � o�f7�
SW�xyWR�=^
•
C�
0
0
CD
• • •
D
CD
3
c�
0
m
1\)
O
co
O
N
W
OIeAea 11 estqd
LI.Og — Z LOZ 1UW
3
c1-5"
(1)3
0 N
CD G O
CD=
3
O
(D
O—LOO 1
n
Iuewet3l36u2 /punwwoO
U8WUOJ!AUD
W N 1
CDO
-0 CD R'
5" CD
CD
-0 n
c CD 0
CD (D a z
0 CD
-0 %.<
= CD= CD a)
a) :3
� D C0 D
p
cp 0 o � �
m � � m
a)
m
3
:() CD
3 co CD
cp 3 5.
0 = *
o :r?-1. o �
= u) --0 z
0 ,
oc-3 Pa
CD <
-0 0 1/4<
CD
CD
0
0
CD
z
CD
X
(1)
CD
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Memorandum
January 4, 2006
TO: Honorable Chair. and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
SUBJ:
3 -B
Recommendation to Approve : 1) A Sixth Amendment to Agreement with Russell
Resources Extending the Term Six Months and Adding S40,000 to the Budget for
Environmental Consulting Services within the Master Developer Footprint at
Alameda Point and 2) a Fifth Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources
Adding $36,000 to the Budget for Environmental Consulting Services within the
"Northwest Territories" at Alameda Point
Background
Russell Resources (previously contracting with the ARRA as Northgate Environmental) has
provided environmental consulting services to the ARRA for the past eight years. Russell. Resources
reviews, analyzes, and prepares comments on Navy environmental documents for the clean-up of
East Housing, FISC Alameda Annex (FISCA) and the Alameda Naval Air Station (Alam.eda Point)
on behalf of the ARRA. In addition, Russell Resources attends and represents the City /ARRA at
meetings with regulatory agencies and the Navy and provides professional expertise to ARRA staff
to allow full participation in the cleanup decisions made by the Navy.
Russell Resources has two agreements with the ARRA: one to provide environmental consulting as
part of negotiations with the Navy regarding property transfer and clean -up activities within the
master developer footprint; and another for consulting in support of the proposed golf course
development in the Northwest Territories and other environmental issues at Alameda Point outside
of the master developer footprint.
Discussion
"Master Developer" Agreement
Russell Resources' existing contract expired on December 31, 2005. The proposed contract
amendment will extend the term of the contract for six months to June 30, 2006, and will increase
the contract by $40,000 to cover ongoing activities related to the contracted scope of services.
During this extended term, Russell Resources will support the discussions with the Navy related to
the conveyance of Alameda Point and will provide technical support to the staff on current and future
environmental remediation within the master developer footprint. In addition, Russell Resources
will continue to attend all Base Closure Team (BCT) meetings, attend regularly scheduled ARRA
Land Use Team and Conveyance Team meetings, attend ARRA /Navy negotiation meetings (as
needed), and attend other technical meetings that may be necessary to support conveyance of
Alameda Point. Finally, Russell Resources will review all technical documents, including reports
Dedicated to Excellence, Coi emitted to Service
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 4, 2006
Page 2
and work plans, and prepare comments on behalf of the ARRA to support the successful transfer and
redevelopment of the master developer footprint.
In the event that APCP exercises its option to proceed with property entitlement activities prior to
June 2006, APCP will assume funding of this agreement through a "cost recovery" agreement to be
negotiated with the city.
"Northwest Territories" Agreement
Russell Resources' current contract is funded for $75,000 and expires on June 30, 2006. Additional .
funding in the amount of $36,000 is needed for the remaining six month term. In May, 2005, the
Navy issued a major Feasibility Study for the cleanup of IR -01, comprising 78 acres and including
the landfill, which is located on a portion of the proposed Golf Course site. This occurred after the
recirculation of the Draft EIR for the Golf Course and has required addition coordination with
regulators and the Navy to address the changes needed in the Hazardous Materials Section of the EIR
and to revise the Response to Comments for the Final. EIR. Russell Resources was required to do
more work than originally anticipated. The additional funds will be budgeted for the next six months
to provide technical support necessary to certify the golf course EIR; to review and comment on
Navy environmental documents for I.R. sites outside of the master developer footprint; and to
participate in meetings with State and Federal environmental regulators and/or the Navy on clean-up
issues outside the master developer footprint.
It should be noted that the request for additional funding for both consulting agreements is necessary
in part because of increased Federal funding for Navy - sponsored environmental clean-up activities.
For example, an additional $50 million in Federal funds will be spent this fiscal. year (Oct. 1, 2005 —
Sept. 30, 2006) at Alameda Point on such work. This almost doubles the previous year's
expenditures. More funding generates more activity and related documents to be reviewed. This
increases the ARRA's demand for technical environmental services.
Fiscal Impact
The proposed additional $40,000 for the "Master Developer" agreement will be paid from bond
proceeds secured by Alameda Point lease revenues to fund the ARRA led pre - development activities
at Alameda Point.
The proposed additional $36,000 for the "Northwest Territories" agreement will be funded by
Alameda Point lease revenues.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approve:
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 4, 2006
Page 3
1) The attached sixth amendment to agreement with Russell Resources for environmental
consulting services extending the terra of the "Master Developer" contract by six months, to
June 30, 2006, and increasin g budget by the bud et b $40,000 for a total budget amount of S506,0001
over a three -year term.
2) The attached fifth amendment to agreement with Russell Resources for a second
environmental consulting services agreement adding S36,000 for ongoing review of cleanup
activities for the Northwest Territories (golf course project) and property outside the Master
Developer footprint for a total budget amount of $111,000 over a three-year term.
Respell filly sub
slle Little
Development Services Director
By: Stephen Proud
Alameda Point Project Manager
Attachments: Sixth Amendment to "Master Developer" Agreement — Russell Resources
Fifth Amendment to "Northwest Territories" Agreement — Russell Resources
1. APCP reimbursed the ARRA $61,413 of this amount under a prior cost recovery agreement.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service