Loading...
2004-06-02 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, June 2, 2004 Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. City Hall will open at 5:15 p.m. 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of December 16, 2003. 2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of March 3, 2004. 2-C. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 7, 2004. 2 -1). Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 5, 2004. 3. PRESENTATION 3 -A. Presentation /update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 4 -A. Recommendation to approve a 15 -month consultant agreement with ROMA Design Group in the amount of $587,595 for Master Land Planning at Alameda Point. 5. ORAL REPORTS 5 -A. Oral report from APAC. 5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. 5 -C. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). 6. 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.) 7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY ARRA Agenda — June 2, 2004 Page 2 S. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: 8 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. 9. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 7, 2004. Notes: ▪ Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary, Irma Frankel 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. APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, December 16, 2003 The meeting convened at 5:55 p.rn. with Mayor Johnson presiding. . ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, B oardmernber, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of .Alameda Marie Gilmore, B oar drnernber, City of Alameda Absent: Tony Daysog, Boardrnernber, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of September 3, 2003. 2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of October 1, 2003. 2-C. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of October 14, 2003. Member Gilmore indicated two concerns regarding the Consent Calendar. Item 2-B, October 1, 2003 minutes should reflect that Member Matarrese participated via teleconference for the Closed Session portion of the meeting as he was out of the country. Member Daysog was not present for the October 1, 2003 meeting. Item 2 -C, October 14, 2003 minutes, Member Gilmore was present for the entire meeting. Member Kerr motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes -0; Abstentions -0. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS There were no regular agenda items. 1 G: \ComdevtBase Reuse& Redevp\ ARRA\M INUTES L2003\Dec16_03 _,Special.ARRA minutes.doc 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -B. Oral report from APAC. Chair Lee Perez reported that the APAC October 2003 Townhall meeting held was extremely successful and beneficial to the community and constituents of Alameda. The event was also well attended. 4 -A. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). There was no oral report from the Executive Director. 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.) There were no oral communications. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY There were no communications from the Governing Board. 7. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: 7 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms Mayor Johnson announced that the ARRA Board obtained a briefing from real property negotiators and a progress report was given. S. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 6:10 p.m. espectf ily submitted, cretia A RRA Secretary 2 G:1Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\ MINUTES \20031Dec16_03_Special.ARRA nunutes.doc APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALA MEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, March 3, 2004 The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding. . ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Barbara Ken, 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 January 13, 2004. Member Gilmore motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was seconded by 'Member Kerr and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -5; Noes -0; Abstentions -0. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body consider designating one of its members to apply for membership on the Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board. Member Matarrese agreed to accept the appointment by the ARRA Board as representative on the Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) for a period of one -year. City Manger Jim Flint stated that an Oral Report Item for the RAB representative will be added to the monthly ARRA agenda for the one-year period. Member Kerr motioned for approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -5; Noes -0; Abstentions -0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. oral report from APAC. Chair Lee Perez reported that APAC has been in discussion of how to best provide support and input to the ARRA Board and will come back to the ARRA with a formal proposal in the future. 1 G:1Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp \ARRA\MINLFTESi2004,3 -3 -04 Regu1ar.ARRA minutes.doc 4 -B. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). There was no oral report from the Executive Director. 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.) There were no oral communications. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY There were no communications from the Governing Board. 7. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CO NFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: 7 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms Mayor Johnson announced that an update was provided by real property negotiators. No action was taken. S. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 5:45 p.rn. espectfully submitted, cretia Akil ARRA Secretary 2 G:\CamdevlBase Reuse& Redevp\ARR.A\MLN UTESt20U41Mar3_04_Regular.ARRA minutes.doc APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOP MENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, April 7, 2004 The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding. . ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, , B oardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 4, 2004. Member Kerr motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes -0; Abstentions -1 ( Daysog). 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS There were no regular agenda items. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from APAC. Chair Lee Perez reported that APAC will present its report to the ARRA Board after the Alameda Point Land Use consultant is hired to ensure that all information is presented to the ARRA in a concise manner. 4 -B. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). There was no oral report from the Executive Director. 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.) There were no oral communications . G: \Camdev \Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MLNUTES12004\4 -7 -04 Regular.ARRA minutes.dac 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY There were no communications from the Governing Board. 7. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: 7 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms Mayor Johnson announced that ARRA received a briefing from its real property negotiator. Direction was given to real property negotiator to negotiate a contract with ROMA, a land use consultant, in which the contract is to be presented in public session at the next ARRA meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 5:42 p.m. spec fully submitted, L cretia Akil ARRA Secretary 2 G:\CamdevlBase Reused RedevplARRAYVIIltii TESl20041Apr7_04_Regu12 r.ARRA minutes.dac APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, May 5, 2004 The meeting convened at 5 :55 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding. • ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Recommendation to accept the work of Blocka Construction, Inc. for Alameda Naval Air Museum, renovations to Building 77. Member Kerr asked when is the Air Museum expected to be operational? Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager indicated that they are expected to be open in Spring 2005. Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Member Kerr and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -5; Noes -0; Abstentions -0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from APAC. Chair Lee Perez reported that APAC has endorsed and created a sub - group to work ROMA, the prospective AP Land Use Consultant, to assist and prepare in the master planning efforts for Alameda Point. The APAC is looking forward to this continuing in this process. 4 -B. Oral report from the Executive Director (non - discussion items). There was no oral report from the Executive Director. t G:1Con devlBase Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTEs12004 \5-5 -04 ReguIar.ARRA minutes.doe 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.) There were no oral communications. 6. CO MMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BOIJY There were no communications from the Governing Board. 7. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: 7 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms Mayor Johnson announced that real property negotiators briefed the ARRA and received instructions from ARRA Boardmembers. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 6:05 p.m. espectfully submitted, Lu retia Akil ARRA Secretary 2 G:1GorrrdevlBase Reuse& Redevp1 ARRA\ MINUTES \2OO41May5_j4_Regular.ARRA minutes.doc Presented to the ARRA Board June 2, 2004 ;.... ct cp '-c cA a) (1) ct 75 ct a) a) -< 4:1 Pt4 c+-1 � 0 a) (-) ct .,94.' ct ,4 4 ct cA cp .o ,_ o c-tE) ,..c1 u Titi) •,_, u p4 ,-=i .c V . 4.., � m ;...., � c., -cit, 1.4,-.-1 pc)4 P-4 ''''A r( U a) � pi- r-T-1 cr ct 1 to b`b ;••.1 . ,,..A (I) • ,-.1 --, Cli C.0 ' c" 0 0 ert (1) 71 ') '4". 4-4 Zei �1 P-IO ARRA's lie O CA U 0 P-4 . r. 0 Ct 0 U .,4 CCU L21-I CiD ct Ci) c ra.4 ;•.0 4� o., ti bo 7:1 e:3 'Co 4.4 a o E FT: ;•mi a � � ' as • Re- Engage the Navy in Transfer Discussions ca) 0.64 ►� v cf_) P.4 • a o;\ v a, o t vt IPIftZ CZ* s.,Pt,N4-t *ftt .44 Ey o ■ ti qi) Q.4 z4 Z: • Ca) o� CO ft*t v! 4ft vzi g ce) N 1444 lit %7)4 wftt „41 � N zt C"4 � ■ Led Predevel ci..„t O %,T\ tzt qi) 4-4 -4t qi) I %,64 t; c,J t4 a„) v W � ° o boo c• Y*14 COI Zt 1:Q rm. CZ °4 ■ N � cf) ‘Zt v C� r4 -1Sac* t4fz..4 o c:1,) Q.• zo qi) Plt • 4.4 ti • tic • ▪ Developed Over the Next 12 ■ Coincides with and Informs the Navy's Conveyance Plans cl 0 ct cA ;; 0 _ b (..) ct ,.., 4 (3 Zi.) ,—( . ,..- ct r ) 48 c Q . C,11 . . E —• .pm( c.,,2 wi..) CU 1.! ,_ fl-, - 2 ;c 0 , ',.) 0 ct 4 c ,9„ . 4 •) cp C o ,a-,) 0 ' .,, ,..w " 5 3 -25 ' -1 ..' 0 'Z' 2 -c,2 o ct o o .,, .. ct • !I o o to o to o o 0 o o a) u u c:4 u c:4 4. . ,o v . . . 4 � c . ) q 4 , i . Q t..4 cop c • c . t t z , ) 'Zl) ti3 1 t • 1,1 t 1"Frl! /ftal ' z i z , ; . . . . P 4 t Z Z1. a '4V ci) t Cf) t Iii%4t4 ij '4Pa%Z ift*t- '-t Z c'l 1... ;. '' -4..1 C) LI- tzi) -4Z4 4 z ii) ;.) ,4'.-Z! Cr) ''' 4 qi) t ,, 'zh t v:*4 1,- t 't q, ,z, > t ''') ;.. -it -4.4 wric.) La PZ qii) Q t4t Cq °P,.E ..1.. 't 'zi t z: Cg .p.1 FC,3 ..,.4 C1) 1Z t v%t ;Pt "c* Tftkt tt4 t t •,...., .ti �q x y 0.'m 4 , , t . co I%ft 4 t z4• 1-4 cz .v.. Z, Z C4 ict4 °'4 CID iza) � � y •N +., p Obi w '+'%1 q .\ .4 V 'ZI : VCft4 t t Val Z C14 1%t *1.: LTC°4 ;t%, � ;14 CO)2 Z ? • Proposed ............ ................:.. .. C ..� �:. i)..s . Y.{ .� i ti �,> ... _ ... i - c .. ,,. .... • Y` i3.. � .� .., . L. ., � . ..s � Y L[ F �. . \..K h v �. � 1. .:�.:< -.��. �.. w.y`�..., . � .y :.�:::'r.'.. =•... i �.. � �.. ..s .. a � ... rte... , �.� .i� �.�n... .......,...... , v,� .. ,.... .._ . '�� 3 �..�5; �5 `s��....'h . �•._ �, r '�.� '�� � �`�3 � �. - ' 4 l'.' � q � 7� , ss. ..n. =3 �,,:� �:..,: � . 1 .... ......,. ....... ..... .. ...,.....i- ..c.... -. .. .,..- .....,. ......._....... L.Z. ... .... ... x:..�, n� �5.:�. .:3..i.\ Cs) N *t C,0 o Cla) Ca) CO CZ 6) � o s g4t pi* 0 �a � o •z ,64 -64 cs\o ■ ct .4?) 'It LI4 4, tit 4,) wismo O 0:1 e .004: O r..) 8 4- G� AO�-+ •4'10 A , "C4 U V °4 ct ‘154 czt cim cf) A•-6 • A.4 1:4 p 00 $21.C,21 O W N n Fizz • N CC! O —+ O ,4 O ct CNJ -a' i61 jarZ C:1 E 0-1 c) tr.) 414 611 F:44 7.4\ CZ "CZ 7.1 Ceo v N -tt- v i PaC C4=4 ‘111 cid y vs .0 .O 51:1 CC: (plitz CIJ • Zo: ‘;'" 44 44 ct o� Ct‘4t4.51 an i • � r "� Non - Residential No -Cost EDP .. ................. ............................... •1 ^ 0 a) it),0 C� CID ca4 T't CI) c4-.4 • 0 a) ci21 • Tic;)''(/) czt Q 4—{ A-4 � 1-d N CA 7i 0 c Business Plan O CA N � ec! "o"' ce 1; 24 p"' D U CA N Pi4 a) CA N 0 CD cit • 0 Ucip el) a3— O a) Ac?)"' 0.) r ;:1 N O OHO ng Dates —May 3rd orking Groups Business/Land Use and Environmenta Analysis and Key Inputs 0 0 U cC 0 U 'ili --ci et ..—...) c't a.) c4 ci.) cci E • ,I 4-4 o ca., � O O (Cls' P-4 ;--, ,---4 (1) 0 4,-,) bA a) P-1 '� .,5,(1) ca) = (-) to � a cG . '" to *r:C-'' U •� i � • � vi 4-, *-8 -zi v). U � o cui) ,—, ct C� 4., 0 a.) (I) E 0 Ni. .- 0 4-cil NS. E 0 ‘-;-' ;_i, A-4 0 ri; 4—, fz., cf) '� c() • 'mod "�� (i) � ,....., - • rt � (1) O O 7)1 Q 4 C/1 i Initial Navy Disposal Strategy: Fall 2004 Full Navy Disposal Strategy: Spring 2005 PDC Completed: June 2005 Next Three ARRAINav July 21, 2004 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum May 25, 2004 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: James M. Flint, Executive Director RE: Recommendation to Approve a 15 -month Consultant Agreement with ROMA Design Group in the Amount of $587,595 for Master Land Planning at Alameda Point Background On January 15, 2004, the Alameda Point Land Use Team issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a land use planning and community engagement consultant team to the City in the preparation of a Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point. The City received nine (9) Statements of Qualifications in response to the RFQ. On February 24, 2004 a multi-disciplinary selection team of city staff including Alameda Point Advisory Committee representative Patti Anne Parker, Planning Board representative Gary Bard and APCP representative Aidan Barry reviewed the nine Statements of Qualifications and selected six (6) firms for interviews. On March 2, 2004 the Selection Team interviewed the top six firms. Based upon the interviews, the Selection Team unanimously agreed that SMWM and ROMA Design Group (ROMA) were significantly more qualified and better prepared to provide the necessary services than the other four firms interviewed. The Selection Team recommended that the staff conduct a more intensive review of each firm's cost proposal and scope of work before making a final selection. Based upon that recommendation, staff asked both teams to submit a revised cost proposal and scope of services. To facilitate the comparison between the two firms, staff requested that both teams make certain common assumptions about total budget, the scope of the community process, and the final deliverable. Based upon a review of the final submittal and a final interview with each team on March l6th, the Alameda Point Project Team identified ROMA as the preferred land use consultant for the following reasons: 1) For the same cost to the City, ROMA committed significantly more time from their firm's principals to the project. 2) ROMA demonstrated a significantly better understanding of the project and the tasks and strategies that might be utilized to overcome the many obstacles to successful reuse of the site. 3) ROMA showed a greater understanding of the complexities of the land use planning effort, the sensitivities of the Navy conveyance process, and the need to carefully coordinate the two efforts. 4) ROMA's recent work on the Oakland Estuary Plan, the reuse of the Austin Airport, the Suisun City waterfront, and the Treasure Island Reuse Plan demonstrated their ability to assist the City overcome many of similar technical and design issues that will need to be overcome in the development of a financially feasible development concept for Alameda Point. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 25, 2004 Page 2 Upon conclusion of the selection process, the Alameda Point Project Team recommended that the Executive Director execute a short term interim contract with ROMA to employ ROMA' s expertise and land use planning skills to support the ongoing Navy negotiations. The 2 -month interim contract enabled ROMA to provide immediate support to the Conveyance Team' s ongoing discussions with the Navy and provided time for ROMA and the project team to completely assess the extent and adequacy of past technical studies and the additional technical support that will be needed to prepare the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC). Discussion Based upon ROMA's excellent qualifications and their performance under the interim contract in support of the ongoing Navy negotiations, the Alameda Point Project team is recommending that ROMA Design Group provide land use and community engagement services for the duration of the ARRA lead predevelopment period through July 2005. The recommended contract, which includes a budget not to exceed $587,595 will provide the ARRA with the land use planning, community engagement, transportation planning and civil engineering and infrastructure planning services needed during the ARRA led predevelopment planning period to complete the Preliminary Development Concept. Attachment A includes a detailed summary of the services that will be provided under the contract and the two sub consultants that will support ROMA's work. The full contract and scope of services is on file in the City Clerk's office for public review. In addition to the technical services that the ROMA team will be providing to the ARRA, ROMA will also be assisting the ARRA engage the community in the planning process. The proposed community process will begin this summer and conclude in summer 2005 with the completion of the Preliminary Development Concept. During the one year period there will be a series of meetings including: 1) Community Meetings. Approximately five large community meetings will be held over the course of the year. These full or half day meetings will provide an opportunity to introduce the community to specific issues that need to be resolved or alternatives that need reviewed and narrowed. The community meetings will be closely coordinated with the on -going negotiations with the Navy and will be structured to respond to issues that will arise during the Navy conveyance discussions. These meetings will be widely noticed to encourage maximum participation by the Alameda community, and they will be structured to provide an opportunity for the community to provide guidance on how best to resolve these issues and balance competing needs or tradeoffs. The community meetings will include presentations of alternative site plans and ideas and/or planning exercises designed to gauge public acceptance of certain ideas, designs, or strategies. 2) Regular ARRA Board Presentations. Regular "check -ins" with the ARRA Board will provide the Board with the opportunity for input into the planning process. 3) Other Boards and Commissions. In addition to the large community meetings, there will be periodic meetings throughout the year with various boards and commissions, such as the APAC, the Planning Board, the Economic Development Commission and other Boards and Dedicated to Excellence, Comnnnitted to Service G: \Ccrndev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA \STAFFREP120041ROMA Contract Staff Report_060204.doc Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 25, 2004 Page 3 Commissions as necessary to receive further input for ARRA consideration at the ARRA monthly meetings. 4) City Website: In addition to the public meetings, the project team will maintain a web page on the City Website with the most current information and issues for discussion. Opportunities will be made available for the community to transmit their comments and concerns via e -mail to the project team. These transmittals will be made available to the ARRA Board and the community throughout the process. Fiscal Impact The 5587,595 necessary to fund these services is consistent with and slightly less than the preliminary budget presented to the ARRA Board for land use planning for Alameda Point. The funds are currently available and set aside for these activities through bond funds secured by Alameda Point lease revenues to fund the ARRA led pre - development period planning activities contemplated under the CAA. Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the ARRA Governing Board authorize the Executive Director to execute a 15 -month consultant agreement with ROMA Design Group in the amount of $587,595 for Master Land Planning at Alameda Point. JFIPB /GF /AT Res . ectfully submitted, P , ' l Benoit eputy Executive Director By: Greg Fuz Planning and Building Director Attachment A: Detailed Summary of Recommended Scope of Services Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:1Cam dev\Base Reuse& RedevpkARRA \STAFFREP\2004LROMA Contract Staff Report.2_ 360204.doc Attachment A: Summary of Recommended Scope of Services Land Use Planning ROMA will act as the City's lead planning consultant for Alameda Point. In this role, ROMA will assist the Project Team develop a land use plan that is financially feasible, that implements the Reuse Plan and the community's objectives, that is closely coordinated and consistent with the Navy remediation plan for the site, and that fulfills the ARRA's commitments under the CAA. ROMA will work closely with the City's economic consultant, Economic Planning Systems (EPS), to test alternative site plans for financial feasibility. The EPS services are being provided under a separate contract. The final result of this multi- disciplinary effort will be the Preliminary Development Concept for Alameda Point. Community Engagement ROMA will assist the Project Team engage the community in the planning process. The objective of the community process is to engage the community in the development and completion of the Preliminary Development Concept, which will outline the City's specific land use and development expectations for Alameda Point. The community process would begin in the summer of 2004 and conclude in June 2005 with the completion of the Preliminary Development Concept. During the one year period there will be a series of meetings which are described above in the body of the staff report. Transportation Planning. As envisioned in the Community Reuse Plan, the General Plan, and the APCP business plan, the land use plan for Alameda Point should be accompanied by a transportation strategy. The Alameda Point transportation strategy will need to be a phased strategy that is closely coordinated with the phases of development envisioned in the land use plan or Preliminary Development Concept. As the number of jobs and households increase with each phase of development at Alameda Point, the transportation program and facilities will need to grow to accommodate the project's additional transportation demands. Consequently, the Preliminary Development Concept to be completed during the next 15 months will be accompanied by a Preliminary Transportation Strategy, which outlines the transportation plan for each phase of development. The Transportation Strategy will include address the following series of questions: 1) Transit Oriented Design. How can the land use plan or the mix of uses be altered to reduce traffic from the project? 2) Trip Generation. How much traffic will be generated by each phase of the development and what will the effect of that traffic be on key intersections and gateways to Alameda (i.e. tubes and bridges)? 3) TDM Strategies What transportation demand management strategies (transit incentives, guaranteed ride home services, car share facilities, parking restrictions, etc.) can and should be implemented with each phase of the development? How much traffic reduction can be expected from those strategies? 4) Transportation Services What additional transportation services (shuttles to BART, ferry services, additional AC Transit services, etc.) should be provided with each phase of the development? How much additional traffic reduction can be expected from these additional services? 1 Attachment A 5) Estuary Crossings. Is the aerial tram or another type of new estuary crossing, (i.e. BART extension, light rail, etc.) technically, politically, and financially feasible? How much additional traffic reduction can be expected from these new crossings, what are there costs, what are the technical and/or permitting obstacles to implementation? To address the project specific questions (primarily questions #1 through #4 above) and support the land use planning and community engagement process, Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants is included as a sub consultant to ROMA. Fehr & Peers is a well - qualified transportation planning firm that has extensive experience with similar projects, such as Hamilton. Air Force Base, Mare Island Reuse, and the Presidio Trust. Fehr & Peers was also the transportation consultant on the Alameda Naval Air Station Community Reuse Plan. Fehr & Peers worked on the project under contract to APCP for over three (3) years during which they have completed approximately 1,500 hours of work on the project's transportation issues. It is essential that the Project Team build upon, improve, and further refine the work that was previously completed by Fehr & Peers for APCP and the ARRA. The most cost effective means to doing this is to include Fehr & Peers on the project team. To address the feasibility of the aerial tram and the estuary crossings question, the project team is proposing to use a Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Grant which was received by the City for this purpose. To facilitate access to these funds, city staff has held several meetings with staff from BART, which is an agency authorized and equipped to receive federal grants for these types of planning efforts. At this time, it appears that it will be most cost effective to partner with BART through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Among other things, the MOA would establish BART's responsibility to receive and account for the use of the federal funds and Alameda's responsibility to manage the consultant work, public process, and review of final work products. The MOA may also include a financial set aside to reimburse both BART and the City for staff time spent administering the grant funds, providing technical support (BART engineering staff), or staff time to support the consultant work or community engagement process. At a the July ARRA Board meeting, the Alameda Point project team will return with a more detailed discussion of the scope for the estuary crossing study and a draft MOA with BART. All of the transportation studies for Alameda Point conducted during the ARRA led predevelopment period will be closely coordinated with, and inform, the concurrent work effort to prepare a Transportation Master Plan proposed by the Transportation Commission. Civil Engineering Technical Support. To ensure a financial feasible development concept that does not depend on General Fund support, the PDC must include an infrastructure and site improvement plan and cost estimates that identifies how the site will be prepared for development (i.e. soil stabilization, flood hazard mitigations, etc) and how the development will be served by public utilities and infrastructure (i.e. location of main lines, pump stations, etc). The infrastructure and site improvement plan should include a phasing plan showing the location and extent of major components of sewage, storm water, solid waste, water, energy and other essential facilities proposed to support each phase of the PDC. APCP has completed a significant amount of work evaluating the existing infrastructure and identifying potential Attachment A improvement phasing plans to accommodate a phased development of the site. The project team believes it is important to build upon, refine, and improve upon the work already completed by APCP to map all the site constraints and opportunities as well as alternative development concepts on a CAD based or GIS based system to support the work of the team, support the work of the community engagement firm, and provide access to information on the project on the internet for the community. The ROMA contract includes Carlson, Barbee and Gibson (CBG) as the civil engineering sub consultant to provide these services. CBG has worked on the project under contract to APCP for over three (3) years and during that period has completed approximately 5,000 hours of work on the project. Given their recent history with the project, CBG is uniquely qualified to assist ROMA and ARRA address the engineering and cost estimating issues that will need to be addressed over the course of the next year. In addition to their recent work on Alameda Point, CBG also worked on similar projects such as Fort Ord, Mare Island, and the Hamilton Air Force Base. Historic Preservation: The ROMA contract does not currently include a historic preservation consultant. On May 24th, the City received four (4) responses to an RFP for historic p reservation services. After completion of the review of the responses, the project team will return to the ARRA Board with a recommendation for a historic preservation consultant and scope of services to augment the project team and further inform the Preliminary Development Concept. 3 Attachment A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of June 2004, by and between y 3 y the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Joint Powers Authority, (hereinafter referred to as ".ARRA"), and ROMA Design Group, a California corporation, whose address is 1527 Stockton Street, San Francisco, California 94133 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. ARRA is a Joint Powers Authority established by the City of Alameda and the Community Improvement Commission under the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act and a public entity lawfully created and existing under the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted. B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein; and D. ARRA and onsu tant desire to enter into an a g reemen and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the sAtd day of June 2004, and shall terminate on the 1st day of September 2005, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED: Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT: Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount set forth in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the ARRA, to be taken from the Alameda Point Refunding Bond 2003. . Alameda Point faster Planning Consultant Agreement Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultant shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees: for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on part of Consultant. However, Consultant shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees. Indemnification For Claims for Professional Liability: As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend and indemnify Indemnitees (as set forth above) is limited to the extent caused by the negligence or willful . misconduct of consultant or anyone for whom consultant is legally liable. 10. INSURANCE: On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish ARRA with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (3 0) days' advance written notice (or ten (10) days' notice in the event of cancellation for non- payment of premium) to the ARRA of Alameda b . certified mail Attention: Risk " p � s sk 1�Ianager. It is by agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to ARRA and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the ARRA as additional insured shall, be submitted with the insurance certificates. A. COVERAGE: Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: (1) Workers' Compensation Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. (2) Liability: Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: (3) Property Damage: $500,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate - all other $100,000 each occurrence $250,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. Automotive: Comprehensive automotive liability cover age in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: Property Damage: 5500,000 each occurrence S100,000 each occurrence Alameda Point .Master Planning Consultant Agreement 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS: Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of ARRA. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from ARRA under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to ARRA by Consultant. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the corporation. 13. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL: Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. 14. PERMITS AND LICENSES: Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 15 REPORTS: A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document, hereinafter collectively referred to as ''Report ", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of ARRA: Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute appropriate documents to assign to ARRA the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of ARRA, and all publication rights are reserved to ARRA. B. implementation of: AI : Reports prepared:. by . Consultant .nay. be used .by ARRA: in execution or The original Project for which Consultant was hired; Completion of the original Project by others (provided that if the Consultant for any reason does not complete all the services contemplated by this Agreement, the Consultant cannot be responsible Alameda Point Vaster Planning Consultant Agreement business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to ARRA shall be addressed to ARRA at: City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda CA 94501 Attention: Greg Fuz, Planning and Building Director All notices, demands; • requests; or • approvals .from ARRA • to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at ROMA Design Group 1527 Stockton Street San Francisco, CA 94133 Attention: Jim Adams 18. TERMINATION: In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Consultant from ARRA, of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, ARRA may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. ARRA shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 19. COMPLIANCES: Consultant shall comply with all applicable state or federal laws and all applicable ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by ARRA. 20. CONFLICT OF LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Alameda, State of California. Alainecla Point Master Planning Consultant Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT ROMA Design Group Adams Title: Principal ALAMEDA REUSE & REDEVELOPMENT k6THORITY By: James M. Flint Title: J Executive Director RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: dry: Greg Fuz, Title: Planning and Building Director By: S phen A. Proud Title: A ameda Point Project Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: David Brandt Title: Assistant City Attorney Alameda Point Master Planning Consultant Agreement 9 Attachment A ALAMEDA POINT PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT MASTER PLANNING CONSULTING FIRM SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work is divided into three sections : one the prime master planning consultant (ROMA Design Group) and two for subconsultants (Carlson, Barbee Gibson; Fehr & Peers) . The budget for each task within the Scope of work is set out in Attachment B. The Client's project manager may reallocated funds between tasks and authorize the use of contingencies by issuing a letter of instructions to the prime Consultant. ROMA DESIGN GROUP Task R -1 Sensitivity Testing (Months 1 through 2): During the first two months, ROMA will work with the Project Team to develop and evaluate alternative development scenarios designed to meet community objectives as articulated in the Reuse Plan, General Plan and Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA), facilitate conveyance, and resolve outstanding City/Navy issues. ROMA will support the City team in their negotiations with the Navy, and in efforts to reach a common understanding of project parameters and economics. The sensitivity testing task will involve the following steps: • Working with the City team and project stakeholders to brainstorm strategies for meeting community objectives and facilitating conveyance of the property. • Develop up to three alternative scenarios that clearly illustrate trade- offs, and calculate programmatic yields. Provide conceptual "work-outs" as required to ensure that concepts are achievable within realistic market and development parameters. Consult with APCP and members of the Project Team regarding product types and marketability. Provide images of similar development or building types. Review with the team and refine as necessary. • Coordinate with the historic architect and structural engineers as required to evaluate the feasibility and practicability of adaptive reuse options in each of the scenarios. Prepare conceptual work -outs as required for up to three adaptive re- use buildings, and coordinate with structural engineers on construction cost parameters. • Coordinate with civil engineering, transportation and environmental consultants in identifying order -of- magnitude increases or decreases in project infrastructure and clean -up costs and potential costs related to off-site impacts for each of the scenarios. • Review: the input from the ARRA, Planning Board, APAC and the community with the Project Team, and evaluate their implications on the range of scenarios developed during the sensitivity - testing task. Update and refine earlier scenarios, incorporating community input, and adjust the projected land value analysis accordingly. • Prepare materials for a Navy/City work sessions and/or staf: other boards and commissions as required. p esentations to Deliverables: Opportunities and Constraints PowerPoint show and background report (PDF and 25 copies). Community workshop materials including PowerPoint show, poster graphics, etc. Supporting presentation materials for Navy /City work sessions. Task R -3 ...:: Alternative Concepts (Months 5 and 6): By the end of the fourth month, it is assumed that clear alternative strategies will have emerged for the base. The goal of the Alternative Concepts task will be to illustrate and evaluate these alternatives for purposes of community review and refinement and further policy direction from the ARRA. Specific tasks will include: Meet with the Project Team to frame the alternatives to be developed and illustrated. It is anticipated that clearly delineated plans will be defined to fully illustrate the implications of critical outstanding issues. Prepare up to three alternatives that bracket the range of financially feasible land use scenarios for the redevelopment of the site Package the alternatives in a way that clearly illustrates outstanding policy and implementation issues. To the extent feasible and appropriate, the alternatives will be designed to also serve as future alternatives for project entitlement environmental review, which is not part of this contract. Prepare materials that convey the physical /visual characteristics of each of the alternatives, including: plans, sections, diagrams, perspective sketches, and!or image precedents. • Coordinate with the Project Team and the technical consultants in performing a rigorous evaluation of the alternatives. Establish criteria which could include: a. Financial /fiscal feasibility, or the ability of the alternative to create sufficient land value to cover the anticipated costs of Navy conveyance, on and off- site infrastructure, affordable housing subsidies, and City public services. b. Implementation feasibility, or the ability to phase and implement on and off - site improvements within the existing regulatory framework. c. Achievement of community goals as articulated in the Reuse Plan, General Plan and CAA. . d. Transportation levels of service. e. Conformance with regional policies and regulations. 3 • Conduct a half-day community -wide workshop to review the preliminary recommended concept report. • Present the recommended development concept(s) and the outcomes from the community workshop to the APAC, the Planning Board and the ARRA for their input and comment. • Prepare materials for Navy /City work sessions and /or staff presentations to other boards and commissions,. Deliverables: Recommended Development Concept report (PDF and 25 copies). Presentation materials for APAC /Planning Board/ARRA workshops. Supporting materials. Task R -5 Preferred Development Concept (Months 9 and 10): ROMA will work with the Project Team to define a Preferred Development Concept that balances Navy conveyance terms with community objectives and City policy direction It is anticipated that this concept will be a refinement of the recommended alternative, presented to the community and to the Navy in the previous task. The preferred development concept will continue to carry forward certain land use sub - options (i.e., specific housing types, layouts or densities for specific subareas) that will be resolved prior to or during the entitlement process. More specifically: • Meet with the Project Team to outline the approach to the Preferred Development Concept. • Prepare a package of presentation materials, including graphics (i.e., plans, sections, diagrams, perspective sketches, image precedents) and summary text and tables that describe the Preferred Development Concept, including: Land Use Concept and Development Program, Cotnrrmunty Design Concept (with` an outline of development standards and design guidelines), Open Space and Community Facilities Concept, Circulation Concept, Implementation Concept (e.g. financing, g phasing) . Review with the Project Team and make refinements as necessary. • Post Preferred Development Concept on the project web site. • Conduct a half -day community -wide workshop to receive input on the preferred development concept and to discuss the implication of outstanding sub- options. • Present the Preferred Development Concept and the outcomes from the community workshop to the APAC, the Planning Board and the ARRA for their input and comment. 5 Deliverables: Administrative Draft and Final Draft Development Concept (PDF and 25 copies of each). Development Concept Summary (PDF and 25 copies). Workshop presentation materials. Task R -7 Contingency: The fee contains contingency funds to be used at the client's discretion for additional meetings or staff time as needed to respond to requests for information. The contingency does not assume significant changes or additions to the scope outlined above. Any requests for additional analysis will be reviewed with the Client to ensure that the requests can be absorbed into the contingency identified. 7 B After the Main Plan has been defined and approved by the City, update CBG's existing draft Master Sanitary Sewer Plan to be consistent with the proposed Master Plan concept. The Master Sanitary Sewer Plan will consider phasing. Task C -7 Master Water System Plan A. Coordinate with EBMUD regarding their preparation of the Master Water System analysis. EBMUD to size the infrastructure water system. Assist EBMUD in the location of the infrastructure lines and the phasing of the project. Task C -8 -- Cost Estimate A. Prepare detailed cost estimate of the infrastructure based on the Master Plan prepared and the phasing of the project. Prepare development fee estimates for the infrastructure items of work. Prepare a "typical" in- tract cost estimate. Prepare a "typical" in -tract development fee estimate. Estimate will be used by KMA for their financial assessment and pro forma of the project. Task C -9 - Meetings and Coordination A. Meet with and coordinate with City of Alameda, the Master Planning Consultant, EBMUD, Alameda Power and Telecom, AT &T, Pacific Bell, PG&E, Precision Planning, F.A.T.C.O., City of Oakland, Traffic Consultants, Geotechnical Engineers, Remediation Consultants and others as requested by Client. Task C -10 Exhibits I Miscellaneous Tasks A. Prepare exhibits and miscellaneous tasks as requested by client. Task C -11 CADD Coordination 1 Base Sheets A. Coordinate all CADD drawings with all consultants such that all drawings are on the same basis. Other Direct Costs (Reimbursables) A. Printing and Computer Plots B. Delivery Services and UPS. C. Other tasks requested by Client or Agencies. D. Computer Disks /Files for Others. Exclusions A. Tentative Mapping and entitlement processing. B. Planning 1 Calculating individual lots within proposed neighborhood. FEHR & PEERS The following scope is a continuation of work completed by Fehr & Peers for Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) during the summer of 2003. The scope necessarily draws upon the earlier analysis but does not contain redundancy with the previous scope as it is anticipated that the land use plans formulated as part of the City's efforts will differ from those of APCP. New work tasks are: 1. Assist ROMA and City staff in refining the Alameda Point project description and site plan to maximize trip reduction benefits resulting from integrating Smart Growth concepts 2. Prepare a revised and updated Alameda Point Transportation Strategy Report (APTSR). The APTSR will: a. Refine earlier trip generation and travel demand forecasting analyses to give an assessment of the transportation impacts of a maximum of three land use alternatives, focusing mainly on impacts to the Posey /Webster Tubes and three bridges b. Include an assessment of the impact of the preferred land use alternative on ten key intersections chosen from the larger group of intersections previously analyzed, the Tubes, and Park, High, and Fruitvale bridges; including one iteration of the plan and analysis. 3. Providing technical support to ROMA and/or City staff at internal and or public meetings, which may include the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee to discuss the transportation impacts of land use planning decisions. Task F-1 Site Planning Fehr & Peers will work with City staff, ROMA, and APCP to refine the project description and site plan to maximize the potential trip reduction benefits of integrating Smart Growth concepts into the project. It is our expectation that the strategies that will be most effective will include • Co- locating retail and office in mixed -use district(s) (consideration of housing in the mixed use zones would also be effective) adjacent to the Ferry Terminal. • Reducing the size of parking fields supporting non- residential uses (this may also offer improved opportunities for more attractive mixed -use districts) . • Incorporating neighborhood commercial in residential areas with the goal that each household is within one quarter mile of a neighborhood commercial outlet. 11 Report. If City staff elects to analyze intersections outside this subset, the scope and budget will be adjusted accordingly. This analysis is a three -step process: 1. Extract the future background traffic (excluding the project) from the model for the bridges, which were not included in the previous analysis. 2. Apply trip generation rates for the various land use scenarios, assuming internalization and some impact from TDM /TSM programs, and distribute trips based on the trip assignment from the model. 3. As the Webster /Posey tubes become more congested, trips will be diverted to other Estuary crossings (the Fruitvale, Park, and High Street bridges). We will assume a uniform level of congestion and apply a percentage increase to those alternative crossings based on the percentage increase by the trips from Alameda Point: Because the earlier TRAFFIX model did not include the three bridges, the model will be expanded as part of this task. This process is designed to avoid executing multiple model runs in order to achieve cost effectiveness, and it is technically sound and sufficient for choosing the preferred land use alternative. However, it does not allow for a complex and finessed understanding of the impact of development on island -wide trips. As trips from Alameda Point begin to impact the tubes, it is difficult (under the proposed analysis) to get a micro -level understanding of which travelers choose to utilize other crossing locations. Therefore, we will not be able to answer questions about specific neighborhood impacts of the land . use alternatives (i.e., where exactly are the trips coming from that will be cutting across town to the bridge and will they be using my street as a cut - through ?). If the City desires, we can execute multiple model runs to get a more complete grasp of the impact to trip patterns. Fehr & Peers will present the results of the analysis, which will inform the selection of a preferred land use alternative. Product F--2A: A revision to the Travel Demand Forecasting chapter for the APTSR including description of the three alternatives analyzed, the revised analysis and assumptions, and results for current and future traffic at ten key intersection locations, the Webster /Posey tubes, and other estuary crossings, under three land use alternatives. Task F -2B Preferred Land Use Analysis Using the refined project description formulated in Task IIA, Fehr & Peers will estimate project trip generation, using the TRAFFIX model previously developed as part of the Transportation Strategy Report, for 2010 and full buildout (2020 or 2025). The TRAFFIX network includes major intersections approaching Alameda Point so that, where necessary, project impact mitigations may be identified. Intersection level of service analysis will be conducted in accordance with the City's guidelines for the same ten intersections included in TASK 2A. 13 requests for additional analysis will be reviewed with ROMA and City staff to ensure that the requests can be absorbed into the contingency identified. 15 Cip 7E4 C.t E 0z.L,0L 0,E 48z $ 0 N �--, r� 0 N —, n r• \ C, 71- Lc R r- 0 0, �' N. $ 362,320 $ 20,000 $ 17,680 $ 400,000 Graphic Support $80 C7 0 G N 0 © 0 N —, c= oa 0[ in 0 N —., 0 C\ .--� 0 . 0 N C\ N © — � 00t$ 000'99$ 00Z'CC $ 00099 $ ArchIL.Arch Urban Designer $110 Landscape Principal B. Fisher $200 N 0 N in .fir —, c) 0 Design Principal B. Dramov $240 { `Nr N'^ Associate PM W. Rask $160 rr — 0 .--WI 0 .--y Do .--i X 0 CC —i 1 L� 0 Ct R N 0 0 PIC/Project Manager J, Adams $200 0 ° o o©a n � •7t oo bq ROMA Design Group Description Sensitivity Testing Issues and Options Alternative Concepts Consultant's Recommended Development Concept Preferred Development Concept ----- Draft Development Concept Plan Subtotal Hours 'TOTAL STAFF COST Contingency TOTAL --4 N 4 M d' 4 \ 4 r- 4 hement B.xls ROMA Budget Total c n o '- r = oa r,-, 1 in € M c)- 1 oc 1 c - ; - a a ri-) N ..-� a to M d- �-w $ 587,595 64,945 C C) C:) [ to a [ � , r• - in c in t` 00 Graphics in an a �--, in � Chris Mitchell C� co o! f a a © c C, CC .--- � E Bruce Fri edman CD, C) C; a "7i" 1 CD CD CD Seleta Reynolds l © kn c= i c--a ! o a tr-� ,,r ,c,-,' Jeff Tumlin In © ©' N 1 as o a oc N a O Sonipol Chatusripitak o © C,1 o _ 0 0 o c a C) M Czaq Other Direct Costs (printing, reproduction, presentation materials, etc.) Matthew Ridgway Va N M N. kn Fehr & Peers 1 Site Planning Revised TDM Chapter Land Use Alternatives Analysis Preferred Land Use Analysis 'Meetings Subtotal Hours TOTAL STAFF COST h E � LL LLI ] Total I000'oot 000'ooi $ in Vii 00 $ 587,595 .»r rr r,-, V J Description ROMA Design Group Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Fehr & Peers TOTAL ROMA Budget -- Attachernent B .xl s AGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 391 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL 2. Public Comment on Non- Agenda Items. Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Meeting will begin at 7:29 p.m. City Hall will open at 7:14 p.m. Anyone wishing to address the Board on non - agenda items may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 3 -A. Recommendation to approve Continuing Resolution authorizing payment of Alameda Point obligations at existing levels until adoption of the FY 2044 -2005 Operating Budget. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 5. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 7, 2004. Notes: Please contact ARRA Secretary, Irma Frankel at 749 -5800 or 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Irma Frankel, ARRA Secretary, or Development Services 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. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum June 4, 2004 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From James M. Flint, Executive Director Re: Recommendation to Approve Continuing Resolution Authorizing Payment of Alameda Point Obligations at Existing Levels until Adoption of the FY 2004-2005 Operating Budget Background In June 2003, the ARRA Governing Body approved an operating budget for Alameda Point to cover expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004. Operating revenues include lease proceed grants. It is estimated that the ARRA will carryover approximately $2,323,406 in lease proceeds in the next fiscal year. Estimated Revenue for fiscal year 2004-2005 is $1,2,472,374 and proposed appropriations are $10,867,984. Discussion The Alameda Point Iudget will be considered at the same time the City Council reviews the City's two-year financial plan. Budget workshops are scheduled through June 8, 2004 with deliberations beginning June 10 and possibly extending through July 2004. Therefore, in order for operations to continue at Alameda Point, it is necessary for the ARRA Governing Body to authorize expenditures at the current level until the 2004-2005 fiscal year appropriations are established. Fiscal Impact Revenue sources identified in the current fiscal year are adequate to fund interim expenditures at Alameda Point for infrastructure maintenance, and administrative costs at present service levels until the budget is passed. In addition, an unexpended federal EDA grant and local matching funds will be available for reappropriation in this interim budget. The interim proposed budget for Alameda Point has no impact on the City's general fund. Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the proposed continuing resolution be adopted allowing interim expenditures from July 1, 2004 until the ARRA budget is adopted, in order to pay Alameda Point obliaations. LALINEVLA slie A. Little Development Services Director By: Nanette Banks • Finance and Administration Division Manager Attachment: Resolution No. 34 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service I," nui1plu,11.,c, 1,6,1,N H61-504 ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 34 AUTHORIZING INTERIM EXPENDITURES OF ALAMEDA POINT OBLIGATIONS IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2004-2005 FY WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment (ARRA) approved a budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Alameda Point operations in June 2003; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that lease revenue for Fiscal year 2004-2005 is $12,472,374 with approximately $2,323,406 lease revenue carryover. In addition, there are unexpended grant and local matching EDA grant monies to be carried over to FY 2004-05. Proposed appropriations for Alameda point operations are $10,867,984; and WHEREAS, Alameda point appropriations include infrastructure, maintenance and administration costs., and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to authorize payment of Alameda Point obligations until the ARRA budget is adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the ARRA hereby approves interim expenditures prior to the approval of the ARRA Budget for Fiscal Year 2004-05 at the levels set by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Budget for FY 2003-04 in order to pay Alameda point obligations until the City/ARRA budget is adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARRA hereby appropriates and approves expenditure of the remaining unexpended grant and local matching funds for the EDA grant award. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 2004-2005 presented to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority no later than the July 2004 ARRA meeting. ******** .I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in its regular meeting assembled on the a_t h day of h, 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: 5 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 LjirTia Fankei, Secretary Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority Date: July , 2004