2011-02-02 PacketAGENDA
Re Meetin of the Governin Bod of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit
Alameda Cit Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Wednesda Februar 2, .2.011
Mee will be at 7:00 p.m.
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approv or adopted b one
motion unless a re for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board or a
member of the public.
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Re Meetin of Januar 5, 2011.
2-B. Adopt a Resolution Amendin Resolution No. 49 S the Order of Business of
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit Meetin
3-A. Endorse "Goin Forward" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point
Redevelopment.
3-B. Provide. Direction on Ke Aspects of Respo to L a wr enc e. Berkele National
Laboratory' Re for. Qualificationsfor a Second Campus at.Al.ameda Point
and Approve Issuance of Request for Qualificati D e v e lopers for L
Berkele National Laborator Second Campus at Ala.m.eda Point.
4-A. Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisor Board RAB
Representative Hi of Januar 6, 2011 RAB:Meet.in
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(An person ma address the g overnin g bod in regard to an matter over which
the g overnin g bod has j urisdiction or of which it ma take co that is not
on the a
6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ARRA A Februar 2, 2011 Pa .2
7. REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
8. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
9. ADJOURNMENT
This meetin will be cablecast live on channel 15.
N ote s:
to Si lan interpreters will be available on re Please contact th ARRA. Se at
747-4800 at least 72 hours before the meetin to re an interpreter.
Accessible seatin for persons with disabilities (includin those usin wheel is available.
Minutes of the meetin are available in enlar print.
Audio tapes of the meetin are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF. THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesda Januar 5, 2011
The meetin convened at 7:02 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presidin
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Marie Gilmore
Boardmember.Lena Tam
Boardmember Dou deHaan
Boardmember Beverl Johnson
Vice Chair Rob Bonta
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
*11 -001) Approve the minutes of the Re Meetin of December 1 20.1.0.
*1 1-002) Approve a Waiver of License Fe for Michaan's Auctions for. Use. of.. Portions of
Buildin 20.
Memb deHaan mo ved .f or. approval. of Item 2-A.:of the. Con sent. Cal endar. Member Tam
seconded the motion, which carried b voice vote.— 4 Abstentions 1 (Bo.nta
Member deHaan m f or. a ppro v al.. of Item 2-.B. of the:Consent Cal Member. Tam
seconded the motion,. which :carried .b unanimous voicevote. 5.::[Items so enacted or
adopted are indicated b an asterisk precedin the para number.]
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS.
Z 0
N ac a
A i
€11 -003) Oral report f rom Member deHaan, R .Advisor Board (RAB.) representative
Hi of December 2, 201 Alameda Point RAB M
Member deHaan did. not attend the December 2, 2010 RAB meetin and has no report.
Member deHaan will attend the next RAB. meetin en .Januar 6, 201 and �will. provide -a report
at the Februar ARRA m The Deput Cit Mana Development Services. w.ill:al
attend the Januar 6 th RAB meetin
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
1 1-004 Ma Gilm asked .the Deput Ci Mana Development Services to provide an..
update on the Lawrence Berkele Lab (LBL) RFQ for a 2M s foot ca with .Alameda.
Point in consideration. The RFQ was sent out on Januar 3 and is due March 4 th Sta ff. and a.:
A #2-A
..ARRA
2=2-201 1
consultant team are workin to to respond to the RFQ. Placeholders hav been put on all
Council/ARRA a before the March due date in case polic dire is needed. The
Deput Cit Mana Development Services summarized .the RFQ, statin that the initial
phase is for 500,000 s ft. of space. Staff is workin closel with the Nav (proper ow
on polic issues that ma need to be dis with the Board.. T he sh.o will be. in .April.
The Deput Cit Mana Development Services. will discuss the deve.lop.ersolicitati.on
process on the 18th in response to the .RFQ, and before the short. list. Othe,r b a ses ha b een
j ump-started b lar institutional user like LBL, it is a g reat catal opport to g et
Alameda Point started.
Member Johnson asked about the location and competit The Deput Cit Mana
Development Services responded that the location was ver specific:. 20.— 2.5.. minutes from
blackberr g ate; and that the bi competitor is LBL's o wn proper a Rich Gild
Station, 90 acres alon the waterfront. The cities of.Berkele and.Emer a.re also included.
Memb deHaan in if LBL is lookin for land site or adaptive. reu Th Deput Cit
Mana Development.Services explained that since LBL needs .state of the art R &D facilities,:
the want to find new. constructio In initial conversations, the area that..stands out -isthe.area:
south .of Atlantic. Construction would .start .i.n. Jul 2013.in area witho cleanup issues.. Ch.
Gilmore re q uested the RFQ be po s ted on the Cit website so that.the Board can ac it and
be prepared to g et q uestions answered.
The Deput Cit Mana Development Services .s t h a t the Golden. Gate Yacht Club. and.
Oracle Racin announced t hat the Americ. #34 wi.11 b held i n San Francisc in.20.13.. In
anticipation of the event, staff sent event or a l r the cit support for
the San Francisco bid, and where Alamed can b e helpful, i.e., host supportive. services on.
Alameda Point for. the America's Cup han ferries, potential e benefit, str
marine industr sailin s and.bein involved in th pla process.
Member deHaan asked. if th Board is takin the :lead with re to the -commu support
efforts, or if there is a sep profession %or tak .the lea The Deput Cit
Mana Development Services replied that it has been a cooperative effort spe
communit members. are involv the mari and sailin world and..h the.connect
that staff doesn't. There are shared ideas an support. The. C it y and s l end s credibilit a a
g overnment entit to their interests.
The Actin Cit Mana discussed the w.ebsite which w b a comm member.
who is connected to the sailin world and .i leading the char workin with the.Cit for bigger
mobilization in support of America's.Cup #34. The business communit wants to g et involved,
and a partnership of residents, business and the cit could help bring some aspect of the event.
to Alameda.
Member Bonta commented on the. amazin efforts from the communit reco Jack
Boe and Bob Naber. Member Bonta stated that he looks forward to workin with staff and
the communit to maximize this opportunit and realize the full potential economicall and.
otherwise.
Member Tam re to be informed of an opportunities for the elected bod to g e t involv
Chair Gilmore re that updates of the event be placed as a re item on the ARRA
agenda.
(11 -005) Referral from Chair Gilmore to change the order of the ARRA meetings.
Member Johnson moved to approve the referral to change the order of. the ARRA
meetings. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanin ous .voice Grote. 5.
3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
(11 -ooh Member Tam commented that with the emerging opportunities, the ARRA should focus
on reshaping its Going Forward process and be more "shovel ready more prepared with
property, parcels, and infrastructure to maximize its competitiveness at Alameda Point.
Chair Gilmore requested a timeline of the Going Forward process so that the Board and the
public can makes comments and any changes necessary. The Deputy. City Manager
Development Services stated that an update will be presented at the .212. ARRA meeting; and
the ARRA predevelopment budget would be presented at the 2/15. mid year.budget adjustment.
Member deHaan asked if staff has interfaced with the new owners of Catellus, TPG Capital 1-P.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services replied that the Economic Development
Director and City Manager were getting up to .spee.d with the new partner. A designated project
manager is working with staff. TPG Capital will likely need to Come. to th .Council /ClC. because
they are changing the development entity in agreement with the CIC. The. Deputy City Manager
Development Services discussed that there will be a staff report, update, and presentation
from the new partner in the next couple of months.
Member deHaan inquired about the interview timeline for the Alameda. Point RFQ Consultants.
The Deputy City Manager evelopment Seryices explained that there were two. da of
interviews with four consultants: real estate. economics, master planning, sustainable design
and green infrastructure consultants, and transportation consultants. Contracts will be.
negotiated in January and will be brought back as part of the mid. year budget adjustment to
demonstrate to the ARRA hoer the project will be paid for. There are also plans to come back
with community feedback in March.
g. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:37. p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit
From: Lisa Goldman
Actin Executive Director
Date: Februar 2, 2011
Re: Adopt a Resolution Amendin Resolution No. 49 Settin the Order of
Business of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit Meeti s
BACKGROUND
At the Januar 5, 2011 re Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit ARRA)
meetin Chair Gilmore submitted a referral to chan the order of items on the. ARRA
a The ARRA Board a to chan the order as su
DISCUSSION
Oral Communications will be added after Roll Call to become Section 2 and will have a
time limit of 15 minutes. Speakers not Called under Section 2 will be called under a
second section of Oral Communications, which will be Section 6. The new order of
business will be as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Oral Communications, Non-A (Public Comment)
3. Consent Calendar
4. A Items
5. Oral Reports
6. Oral Communications, Non-A (Public Comment
7. Executive Director Communications
S. Referrals from the Governin Bod
9. Communications from the Governin Bod
10. Ad
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact from chan the order of a items.
A Item #2-
ARR
2-2-2011
Honorable Chair and February 2, 2011
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution loo. 40 setting the Order of Business of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION No.
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 49
SETTING THE ORDER OF BUSINESS OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority By la rs
Section 3.08 give the said authority direction to adopt rules of order governing the
proceedings and order of business of the Governing Body by resolution and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 1995, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority adopted Resolution No. 001 establishing the Rules and Procedures fo the.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority meetings; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 1995, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority adopted Resolution No. 10 amending Section 8 of the Rules and. Procedures
to set the Order of Business for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
meetings; and
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2010, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority adopted Resolution No. 49, amending the order. of..Business
of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings to include `Ixecu ive
Director Communications' and `Referrals from the Governing Body as standard agenda
items on the regular agenda; and
WHEREAS, it is desired that the order of Business be amended to include
a section of oral Communications after Roll Call in order to allow 15 minutes of public
comment prior to action items; and
NOVA, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda Reuse. and
Redevelopment Authority that said authority hereby amends Resolution No. 49 by
amending the order of Business to read as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. oral Communications, Non Agenda (Public Comment)
3. consent Calendar
4. Agenda Items
5. Oral Reports
8. oral. Communications, Non- Agenda (Public Comment)
7. Executive Director Communications
8. Referrals from the Governing Body
9. communications from the Governing Body
10. Adjournment
I, the undersi hereb certif that the fore Resolution was d ul y and..
re adopted and passed b the Governin Board durin the Regular Meetin of
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit on the 2nd da of Februar 2011, b
the followin vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m hand and affixed the official seal of
said Authorit this 3rd da of Februar 2011.
Irma Glidden, Secretar
Alameda Reuse.and Redevelopmen t Authority
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit
Memorandum
To: Honorable chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Lisa Goldman
Acting Executive Director
Date: February 2, 2011
Re: Endorse "Going Forward" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point
Redevelopment
BACKGROUND
In .January 1.9.9 6. the City of Alameda and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) adopted the Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS Alameda) Community.
Reuse Plan (Reuse. Plan which establi =shed the following Vision statement for the
reuse of the .former NAS Alameda:
Between now. and the year 2020, the City of Alameda will integrate the Naval ,Air .station property
with the City and will realize a substantial part of the Base's potential. Revenues will have
increased and a healthy local economy will have resulted from the implementation of a
coordinated, environmentally sound plan of conversion and mixed-use. develo prr3ert. while
building upon the qualities, which make Alameda a desirable Mace to live, efforts for. improving
recreational, cultural, educational, lousing, and employment opportunities for the entire. region
will have been .successful.
In 2000, the city amended the General Plan to entitle portions of. the:. former SAS
Alameda consistent with the Reuse Plan and to allow conveyance of. the land and
development to proceed on. the portions of the base east of Main Street currently
Known as Bayport and Alameda Landing. In 2003, the. .City amended the General Plan
to address the redevelopment and reuse of the remainder of the former BIAS. Alameda,
west of lain street (Alameda Point
Since then, the ARRA entered into exclusive negotiation agreements (ENA) with two
potential master developers to entitle and facilitate conveyance and. development of
Alameda Point. Neither master developer process resulted in the successful .entitlerr ent
and development of the property.
"Going Forward" Process
In September 2010, staff initiated a city -led planning and community engagement
strategy for "going forward" at .Alameda Point. The purpose and intent .of the "going
forward" community engagement strategy is to identify and describe a community
Honorable chair and February 2, 201
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 7
supported, financially feasible land use vision for Ala.meda..Point. The vision will serve
as the basis for a land use and entitlement plan and conveyance agreement with .the
United States Navy (Navy) for Alameda Point. Staff intends for the "going forward"
process to be a two- tiered effort:
1. Vision and Project Description. The first tier of the Alameda. Point planning
process will be to build community support for a feasible vision for the
redevelopment of Alameda Point, which serves as. the basis for..a project
description sufficient to commence the state.and federal. environmental review
process. Estimated completion date: July 2011 j
2. Plan Preparation and Entitlement Approvals. The second tier of the
Alameda Point planning effort .gill. be to complete the entitlement process and
approvals necessary to commence the conveyance, disposition and
development of land at Alameda Point based on the vision and project
description developed as part of the first .tier. rEstimated comp letion date: July
2013
To commence the community engagement strategy for the visioning process, staff
prepared the Common t Planning Workbook which was. provided to the ARRA at its
December 1, 20.10 meeting, and designed a series of community forums to engage the
community in the process of learning from past efforts and creating a vision for Alameda
Point. The workbook and the forums are designed to inform and facilitate a community
discussion around .a number of critically rrportant develop�ent questions for Alameda
Point. These questions are designed to highlight and focus commur i di scuss ion on
trade -offs that may be necessary.to achieve financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality.
The topics highlighted in the community workbook include:
1. Land Use what is the appropriate nix of recreational, cultural, educational,
housing, service, and .employment uses at Alameda Point?
2. Building Types and Neighborhood Character What should new buildings and
neighborhoods in Alameda Point look and feel like?
3. Parks and Open Space How should parks and open space be designed to
improve the lives of all Alameda residents?
4. Historic character Preservation and Adaptive Reuse How should we honor
and preserve the history of the former Naval Air station?
5. Transportation and Access How should people travel to and from Alameda
Point?
0. Community Benefits Which community benefits are the most important?
Honorable chair and February 2, 2011
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 of 7
Fall 2010 Forums
The city held three community workshops in the fall of 2010. The content and materials
presented at the workshops at three different locations throughout the city (i.e., East,
Central and West Alameda) was identical. This format allowed residents, business
owners, and other interested stakeholders from different neighborhoods to provide
ideas and feedback on lessons learned and suggest new ideas for Alameda Point. The
workshops occurred on:
November 9, 2010 East Alameda Bay Farm Island Grand Pavilion
November 18, 2010 central Alameda Mastick Senior center
December 8, 2010 —West Alameda —The O'Club
The forums were well attended (approximately 50 -100 participants at each forum), and
discussions were animated. An online interactive workbook was also made available at
www.alamedagoint-goingforward.com through January 31 2011. Additionally, staff will
hold an Alameda Point Tenant Forum on February 8, 2011.
DISCUSSION
Going forward with a city --led entitlement effort for Alameda Point redevelopment will
allow the community to determine its own vision and. development standards for
Alameda Point before partnering with a private de.veloper .d.evelopers. As..a result,
the city and community have a stronger voice and greater. control over the planning
process, and future development partners face less entitlement risk and gain greater
certainty regarding development potential and investment return.
The greatest challenge to a city -led entitlement effort will be .to fund the technical
studies, workshops, and efforts that will be necessary at each stage of the two- tiered
process. Staff will present a budget for the Vision Project. Description process for
approval to the ARRA at the February 15 2011 special ARRA meeting, along with a
preliminary budget for the entire two -year Plan Preparation and Entitlement Approvals
process. The final proposed budget for the.. first year of the Plan Preparation and
Entitlement Approvals. process gill be presented and recommended for. approval as part
of the FYI 1 -12 budget process. city staff is also seeking grant funds from the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $750,00.0 and the Department of
Defense's office of Economic Adjustment for $200,000 to help fund this
predevelopment process.
The key aspects of the first tier of the city -led Vision and Project Description effort over
the next six months are as follows:
Master Manning. An inter departmental staff team will be leading a team of key
consultants (i.e., land use planning, real estate economics, civil engineering,
Honorable chair and February 2, 2011
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4 of 7
sustainability planning, transportation, and environmental), which will comprise
the Alameda Point Resource Team. This Team will prepare and evaluate
development alternatives for Alameda Point, according to financial /fiscal,
transportation and environmental sustainability criteria, and based on ongoing
community feedback and technical analysis, propose a vision concept and
project alternatives for acceptance by the ARRA in July 2011. As described
above, this project description will serve as the basis for commencing both state
and federal environmental review.
Long -Term Leasing Strategy. concurrently, staff will develop a strategic policy
framework for allowing appropriate, long terra uses and tenants at Alameda
Point. The master planning effort will inform the development of.this strategy.
The strategy will discuss geographic, tenant and performance criteria.for allowing
more long -term leases at Alameda Point and is expected to evolve as the plan
for Alameda Point evolves over time.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Second carpus. The Alameda Point
Resource Team will respond to the Lawrence Berkeley rational Lab (LBNL)
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a location for its second campus at
Alameda Point. if successful, this planning process will inform the master
planning effort for Alameda Point.
Land Conveyance Transactions. Staff will continue to engage the Navy and
Statelands commission in discussions regarding a conveyance :agreement and
Statelands Exchange Agreement, respectively. Initial discussions over the next
six months will also potentially influence the vision prepared for Alameda Point.
Other Related Planning Efforts. Staff will be closely coordinating its master
planning effort with other inter- related planning efforts, including the current effort
to evaluate preliminary traffic assessments of transportation options .for Alameda
Point funded through a grant from the Federal Transit Administration; Alameda
Point Collaborative's community planning process regarding the potential
consolidation of its existing facilities into new improved facilities; the city's Urban
Greening Plan, which will assist in the master planning of regional parks and
urban farms at Alameda Point; and the Department of Veteran's Affairs proposed
outpatient clinic and columbariurn adjacent to the ARRA's proposed project.
The following provides a detailed schedule and description of next steps for the "going
forward" process.
January 2011
Commence staff discussions on long -term leasing strategy for Alameda Point
Commence engagement of city Boards and Commissions.in visioning process
Honorable Chair and February 2, 2011
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 5 of 7
Restoration Advisory Board January 6th
Economic Development Commission January 20th
Planning Board January 24
Close comment period on Community Planning Workbook January 31 st
Hold site tour and meeting with staff from the State Lands Commission
January 31 st
February 201'
Request endorsement from ARRA on "going forward" process February 2nd
i Hold Alameda Point Tenant Forum February 8th
Continue engagement of City Boards and Commissions
Historical Advisory Board February 3rd
Recreation and Park Commission February 1 0th
Transportation Commission February 23rd
Seek approval from ARRA on Vision and Project Description budget through July
2011 February 15th
Finalize contracts for Alameda Point Resource Team, including for
transportation, sustainability, real estate economics, and master planning
consultant February 15th
Prepare a Summary Report of the community feedback received from the
community forums, online workbooks, Boards and Commission meetings, and
Alameda Point Tenant Forum
Submit a Strategic Area Planning Grant application to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) for $750,000 to assist ARRA in the funding of
the Plan Preparation and Entitlement Approvals process
Marche 2011
0 Present Summary Report of community feedback to the ARRA March 2 d
Hold "market testing" interviews with development community
Honorable chair and February 2, 2011
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 6 of 7
Prepare and evaluate development alternatives according to land use, financial,
fiscal, environmental, and transportation criteria
April/May-2011
Hold workshops on sustainability topics: environmental, transportation and
financial /fiscal sustainability issues
0 Present development alternatives to the ARRA April 6th
Discuss long -term leasing strategy with the ARRA April 6 th
0 Receive response from MTC on strategic Area Planning Grant
Continue evaluation of development alternatives and discuss preferred
alternative
Conduct ongoing stakeholder interviews and discussions with community,
Boards and Commissions and ARRA regarding alternatives
June /July 2011
Prepare MTC funding agreements, if grant is awarded to ARRA
Prepare draft document for a preferred vision concept, including discussion of
other potential alternatives
Prepare draft project description and alternatives sufficient for commencement of
state and federal environmental review process
0 Finalize long -term leasing strategy
Recommend approval of the budget for the Plan Preparation and Entitlement
Approvals process for FY11 -12
Recommend acceptance of the preferred vision concept, project description, and
long terra leasing strategy to the ARRA
0 Commence environmental review process
July 2011 -Jmy20 3
Continue community engagement process for preparation of plans and
entitlement approvals and continue discussions of alternatives and trade -offs
Honorable chair and February Z, 2011
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 7 of 7
complete environmental review process
Complete property transfer and land exchange agreements with Navy and state
Lands Commission
Complete preparation and approval of Entitlement Approvals including Alameda
Point specific Plan and Master Infrastructure Plan
Staff recommends endorsing this city -led predeveloprnent process and schedule for
redevelopment of Alameda Point.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The budget for the Vision and Project Description process will be presented and
recommended for approval to the ARRA at the February 15, 2011 special ARRA
meeting, along with a preliminary budget for the entire two -year Entitlement Approvals
process. The final proposed budget for the first year of the Entitlement Approvals
process will be presented and recommended for approval as. part of the FY11 -12
budget process. city staff is also seeking grant funds from the Metropolitan
Transportation commission (MTC) for $754,000 and the Department of Defense's
Office of Economic Adjustment for $200,000 to help fund this predevelopment process.
RECOMMENDATION
Endorse the "Going Forward" process and schedule for Alameda Point redevelopment.
ctfully submitted,
Jehnif r Ott
DeputY1City Manager
'"M ft
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Memorandum
To: Honorable chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Lisa Goldman
Acting Executive Director
Date: February 2, 2011
Re: Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second campus at Alameda Point
and Approve Issuance of a Re guest for Qualification for Developers
BACKGROUND
The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has issued. a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) to property owners for a second. campus to..consolidate current
programs that are located in leased .space throughout the East Bay,. and to prepare for
long -terra growth (Second campus). The Second campus ..Will consolidate
approximately 480,000 square feet of laboratory and office space. in the first phase.
development (Phase 1). The Second campus must. also have. the development
capacity for approximately two million gross square feet for future research and
development facilities to meet LB N L's long -term needs d uring the next .30 to. 50 years.
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) has .assembled an inter-
departmental team to prepare the ARIBA's response to. the RFQ, led by the City
Manager's Office with collaboration from Economic Development, commu
Development, Public Works, and .Alameda Municipal Power. Staff is also working
closely with planning, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, and environmental
consultants to prepare the response to the RFQ.
DISCUSSION
Staff requests that the ARRA provide direction on four key aspects of the ARRA's
response to the RFQ: site. location, planning guidelines, financial incentives, and. a
request for qualifications for developers.
Site Location
Staff has identified an approximately 50-acre site in .the southern portion of Alameda
Point as the most competitive. location for meeting LB s stated space and locatio.nal
requirements for Second .campus (Proposed Site) (Exhib 1). As. depicted on. Exhibit
1, Phase 1 is proposed for .the southwest. corner of the. Proposed Site along Ferry Point
Road between West Hornet Avenue and vilest Ticonderoga Avenue.
Agenda
R 1.
Honorable chair and Members of February 2, 2011
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 5
Staff selected the Proposed Site based upon the following considerations and criteria:
The Proposed Site is. not constrained. by land use or. development restrictions
imposed by Tidelands Trust, the. Wildlife Refuge Buffer, the. Naval Air Station
Historic District and the 100 -year flood .zone.
The General Plan .and zoning designations for the Proposed Sate .are consistent
with the plan for the. Second. Campus. q No Genera.l amendment or zoning
amendments will be necessary to develop the. Second campus at Alameda
Point.
The Proposed Site is. immediately adjacent. to, and compatible. with, the Maritime
Administration (MARAD) fleet operations. at the piers. in the southern portion of
the property and ..the proposed Water Emergency. Transportation Authority's
(WETA) central Bay Maintenance and Operation Facility.
The Proposed :Site.. allows for..a land use transition and "buffer zone" between. the
Second Campus and the residential neighborhoods east o f Main Street.
The Proposed. Site. is strategically situated near the ..waterfront to provide the
Second campus with dramatic. water views, as well as access to existing and
proposed recreational uses, :including the Bay Trail, that the RFQ identified as
priorities for an ideal Second.Carnpus location.
The Proposed :Site provides. easy and direct .access. along. Pacific Avenue to
restaurants, retail stores and hotels along Webster street for future use by LBNL
employees and visitors. Additionally, as the remainder of Alameda Point
redevelops, LBNL employees will ..have the opportunity to walk to restaurants,
retail facilities, a hotels at Alameda point.
The Navy anticipates completion of environmental. remediation at. the Proposed
Site in time to meet the. construction timelines contained. in the RIQ.
Staff requests that the ARRA approve the proposed site location for the Second
Campus.
Planning Guidelines
As part of the ARRA's response .to the. RFQ, staff intends to. outline clearly. any planning
guidelines LBN shouid be.aware.of. in planning for its. development. Staff requests that
the ARRA Board confirm the following planning :assu.mptions:
1. Planning Entitlement Process:. The. ARRA will work Frith LBNL to establish long
term entitlements for full buildout of the Second campus over a multi -year period.
The process would allow for approval of entitlements'. for the full two million
square feet of development and of pre- determined design standards for each
Honorable Chair and Members of February 2, 2011
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 of 6
new building. Conformity with the pre determined architectural and site planning
design standards would be subject to Planning Board review and approval. This
process would be similar to the planning process for new campus developments
at the Harbor Bay Business Park.
2. Building Heights: The existing zoning height limit is 100 feet (approximately 9
stories), but building heights should be limited primarily to three to four stories,
with the possibility for one or two "signature" buildings of five to six stories in
height. These building heights are compatible with the four and five story high
MARAD fleet ships and the L SS Hornet, which are 93 feet from the waterline.
3. Parking: The first phase of the project is proposed to include surface parking
spaces, with subsequent phases of the Second Campus to include. structured
parking to minimize the amount of land needed to accommodate LBNL's long-
term employee parking needs.
4. Public Improvements: Street and infrastructure improvements will be needed to
accommodate and serve the Second Campus. Staff envisions a rn.ain .entrance. at
Main Street and Pacific Avenue, with street improvements from that intersection
into the Second Campus.
Staff requests that the ARRA approve the proposed planning guidelines for the Second
Campus.
Financial Incentives
The RI=Q requests that respondents. describe potential financial incentives that may be
offered for selection of the Proposed Site from the City, County, State, utilities, etc.
Staff recommends that the ARRA .offer the Proposed Site at no .cost to LBNL. because of
the many direct and indirect .public .benefits that will accrue to the City from the Second
Campus at Alameda Point, including:
A significant catalytic effect on the redevelopment of Alameda Point and
Alameda Landing;
Spillover demand for office and lab space at Alameda Point and in local business
parks;
New administrative, managerial and advanced degree positions and wages. in the
clean tech and life sciences fields with approximately 800 employees expected in
Phase l; and
Local spending by LBNL employees with increases in local retail sales.
Other financial incentives, such as fee waivers, tax rebates or reduced planning fees,
would remain subject to negotiations with LBNL as part of future discussions.
Honorable chair and Members of February 2, 2011
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4 of 5
Staff requests that the ARRA approve the financial incentive of offering the Proposed
Site to LBNL for the second campus at no cost.
Developer RFQ
The LBNL RFQ for a Second campus anticipates that short listed .respondents will
engage an entity with appropriate development experience to participate in the detailed
negotiations and construct infrastructure and building facilities. required for the second
Campus. In response to this request, staff has prepared an RFQ for Developers with
experience relevant to the proposed Second Campus development in the event that
Alameda Point is short listed (Exhibit 2).
Staff requests that the ARRA approve issuance of the attached RFQ for Developers.
Next Steps
Timeline for Decision Making Process for LBNL second campus:
City Council to Approve Resolution
of Support for LBNL Second Campus
at Alameda Point
Responses Due
Site Selection (Short List)
Site Selection (Detailed Negotiations)
Preliminary Development Agreement
February 15, 2011
March 4, 2011
April 2011
June. 2011
September 2011
Timeline for ARRA's selection of Development Team for LBNL Second campus:
ARRA Issuance of Developer RFQ
February 3, 2011
Responses Due
March 3, 2011
Staff Interviews
March 15, 2011
Selection Recommendation to ARRA
April 12, 2011
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The University of California (UC) intends. to finance the development of the site.
However, UC will also consider third -party financing, or a combination of public and
private financing, if such financing would .be more .benefici.al. It is expected that .the city
would receive many direct and. indirect benefits from the Second Campus at Alameda
Point. As a public institution, a second campus at Alameda Point will not generate any
property or sales tax revenue for the City. The city anticipates that producing its
Honorable chair and Members of
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 2, 2411
Page 5 of 5
response may cost between $20,000 and $25,000, which w i l l be paid through the
existing ARRA budget.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
1. The Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan (1996) calls for the
creation of a mixed -use, sustainable development at Alameda Point, including an
emphasis on significant job creation.
2. The Alameda Point General Plan Amendment (2003) encourages amixed -use
development, which includes over two million square feet of commercial
development.
3. The City's Economic Development Strategic Plan (2000 and 2006) Strategy #1 is
the creation of industrial and office jobs.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Provide direction on key aspects of response to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second campus at Alameda Point.
2. Approve issuance of a Request for Qualification for Developers
R pe tfully submitted
ILI
Jennifek, Ott
Deputy ity Manager
By:
i
�uFt3�
Eric Fonstein
Economic Development Department
Development Manager
Exhibits.
1. Proposed Site for Second campus at Alameda Point
2. Request for Qualifications for Developers for LBNL Second Campus at Alameda
Point
a.
lot:
AR RA
Exhibit 2 to
A B
.2-2-2011
Request for Qualifications for Developers
for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus at Alameda Point
I. Executive Summary
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) seeks to select a qualified
developer to form apublic /private partnership in
the event that Alameda Point, a portion of the
decommissioned Naval Air Station Alameda
(NAS Alameda), is short- listed as a potential site
for the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
(LBNL) Second Campus.
The Second Campus will be home to a state -of-
the -art research and development facility for
LBNL, including an initial phase of 480,000
square feet and subsequent phases of up to 2
million square feet at buildout.
The qualified developer will be selected by the
ARRA. based on the developer's project
understanding and approach; relevant experience
and track record; financial resources; innovative
approaches to financing and public partnerships;
management team and structure; and proposed
consultant team.
II. Background
The City of .Alameda is an island community
with a population of approximately 75,000
people located in the heart of the Bay Area.
The western portion of the City is comprised of
the former NAS Alameda, which was
decommissioned in 1997. The 915 -acre portion
of NAS Alameda controlled by the ARRA for
future disposition and development is referred to
as .Alameda Point and represents one of the most
unique infill waterfront development
opportunities in the Bay Area.
The ARRA. is currently undertaking a master
planning effort to create a vision and project
description for a vibrant mixed -use waterfront
community at Alameda Point. The project
description is expected to be complete by July
2011. once a vision for Alameda Point has
been developed, the ARRA will commence its
environmental review and entitlement process
for redevelopment of Alameda Point, aiming for
approval by July 2013. Information about this
current planning process and previous planning
efforts at Alameda Point can be found at
www.alamedapoint-goingforward.com.
If successful in attracting the LBNL Second
Campus to Alameda Point, the entitlement and
development effort for the Second Campus will
be coordinated closely with the ARRA's master
planning process.
III. Development opportunity
LBNL issued an RFQ for a Second Campus on
January 3, 2011 (Exhibit 1). The ARRA is
currently in the process of preparing a response
to the RFQ for an approximate So -acre site at
Alameda Point for submittal by the deadline of
March 4, 2011. The RFQ does not require a
development team to be in place at the time the
initial response is due. However, LBNL
anticipates creating a short -list of sites by April
2011, at which time the respondents are
expected to have engaged an entity with the
appropriate development experience.
Based on developer responses to the ARRA
RFQ and developer interviews, staff expects to
recommend approval of a preferred developer to
the ARRA at its March 15, 2011 meeting in
order to meet LBNL's April deadline.
The A.RRA's proposed site at Alameda Point
falls within the 25 minute distance requirement.
from LBNL's existing campus, meets all of the
other requirements set forth in the LBNL RFQ,
and is highly competitive for attracting the
Second Campus due to its unique waterfront
location in a safe community with a track record
of supporting j ob- generating development
(Exhibit 2) Additionally, the Alameda Point
site requires minimal to no environmental
remediation, is strategically located within
minutes of a ferry terminal, bus routes, interstate
freeways, and the Oakland International Airport,
and is within close proximity of numerous
recreational, retail, hotel, and restaurant
Request for Qualifications for Developers
for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus at Alameda Point
amenities. Furthermore, LBNL can be an
important and integral partner with the ARRA in
shaping the vision and plan for the new
community that will grow up around them.
Pursuant to its Lease in Furtherance of
Conveyance with the United States Navy
(Navy), the ARRA has decided to offer the site
to LBNL at no -cost through along -term ground
lease with an option to purchase upon
conveyance of the property to the ARRA from
the Navy.
The ARRA's proposed Alameda Point site for
LBNL is not within a historic district, 100 -year
flood zone, an area subject to the Public Trust,
or an endangered species buffer zone.
IV. Role of Developer
The selected developer will become the ARIBA's
private development partner and :maintain
primary responsibility for the following aspects
of development of the Second Campus project:
1. Establishing a fair, effective, and
collaborative partnership with the ARRA, the
landlord and eventual landowner.
2. Pursuing and securing entitlements, including
master site planning, environmental review,
design review, coordination with the larger
Alameda Point master planning effort, and
negotiation of relevant development
agreements with LBNL, in concert with the
ARRA and City.
3. Design and phasing of infrastructure,
landscape and buildings.
4. Construction of infrastructure, landscape, and
facilities.
5. Potential private financing of predevelopment
and development process.
V. Content of Statement of Qualifications
The ARRA welcomes a response to this RFQ in
a format that the developer believes best
expresses the qualifications of the development
team. It is requested, however, that the
statement of qualifications (SOQ) submitted
clearly include the elements described in this
section.
1. Executive Summary Brief synopsis of the
development team's approach to
development, public/private partnerships,
key qualifications, and relevant experience.
2. Project Understanding and Approach.
Discussion of the developer's (a)
understanding of the City of Alameda,
Alameda Point, the proposed LBNL R.PQ,
and proposed Alameda Point site, and (b)
approach to meeting LBNL's requirements
and the ARRA's goals and objectives
expressed in this R FQ.
3. Desci tion of Pro j ect Team. Description of
the developer's structure, designated project
manager, and project management team,
including of the role of each team member.
Please also include resumes and references
for each member of the project management
team.
4. Description of Consultant Team. Summary
of the developer's selected team of
consultants to meet the development needs
requested by LBNL, including master
planning, engineering (i.e., civil,
transportation, structural, geotechnical), and
building and landscape architecture
consultants. Please also provide resumes and
references for key consultant staff members.
5. Previous Experience Description of the
specific project experience of the entity, key
individual team members, and consultants in
entitlements; Infrastructure development and
phasing; build -to-suit commercial
development; specialized research and
2
Request for Qualifications for Developers
for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus at Alameda Point
development facilities; large -scale multi
year, infill and brownfield redevelopment;
federal and/or State solicitations. Please
also include references for at least five of the
previous projects referenced in this section.
6. Financial Qualifications. Provision of clear
evidence of financial resources to assist in
the entitlement and development of the
LBNL Second Campus at Alameda Point, as
indicated by financial statements, a
description of relationships with investors
and lending institutions, and past project
performance. Please provide specific
information on typical sources of
predevelopment funds, construction
Y financing, long. -terra financing, and other
working capital.
7.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Proposed Relationship and Roles between
ARRA, Developer, and LBNL. A. proposal
for the envisioned management, legal, and
financial relationships and roles between the
ARRA, developer, and LBNL during each
of the four stages of the proposed LBNL
selection and development process, as
indicated in the LBNL RFQ:
Site Selection Detailed Negotiations
Preliminary Development Agreement
Negotiations
Conceptual Development Plan and
Environmental Assessment Process
Design, Phasing, and Construction of
Infrastructure and vertical Development
Process
8. Acceptance of Conditions. An acceptance
of all rules and conditions specified in this
RFQ, as evidenced by the respondent's
completion of the attached certification form
(Exhibit 3).
VI. Selection Process
1. Submittal Date and Location. Fifteen (15)
hard copies and one electronic pdf copy of
the SOQ are due at 4:00 PM on March 3,
2011. Responses must be delivered via mail
or hand delivery to:
Jennifer Ott
Deputy City Manager
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320
Alameda, CA 94501
Please contact Jennifer Ott at
j ott Ldici.alam.eda-ca-us or (510) 747 -4747
with any questions regarding this RFQ.
2. Review Process. Responses to the RFQ will
be reviewed and evaluated by a team of staff
according to the criteria outlined below. A
short list of developers will be invited to
participate in .an interview. Based on the
SOQ and interview, staff will .recommend a
preferred developer to the ARRA at the
April 12, 2011 meeting. The ARRA may
elect to postpone this date in order to solicit
feedback from LBNL on the final selection
process.
3. Selection Criteria. SOQs will be evaluated
along with the results of the ARRA's due
diligence and reference checks. More
specifically, the criteria used to assist in the
selection of a preferred developer will be:
Responsiveness to this RFQ
Evidence of relevant experience
Technical capability and relevant
experience of the project management
and consultant team
Evidence of financial resources
Innovative approaches to financing and
public partnerships
In depth understanding of project
4. Interview Date. Staff is holding March 15,
2011 for interviews of the selected short list
J
Request for Qualifications for Developers
for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus at Alameda Point
of developers. To the extent possible, please
reserve this date in the event your team is
short listed. The ARRA will make its
formal response to the LBNL RFQ available
to the short list of qualified developers.
VII. General Conditions
Any material clarifications or modifications to the
RFQ or the selection process will be made in
writing and provided to all respondents who
provide written confirmation of their intent to
submit to Jennifer Ott at the contact information
provided above. It is the responsibility of the
developers, prior to submitting a response to the
RFQ, to ascertain if any notices, clarifications,
addenda, or other communications to responders
have been issued by the ARRA. oral explanations
or instructions from City staff, City officials, or
consultants shall not be considered binding on
the City.
Developers' responsiveness to all items in this
RFQ will be taken as evidence of the developer's
interest and commitment to the project. A failure
to respond completely will be interpreted as a
lack of full interest and commitment or a defi-
ciency on the developer's part.
The 14 14 reserves the right to:
Modify or cancel the selection process or
schedule at any tinge.
0 waive minor irregularities.
Reject any and all responses to this RFQ and
to seek new responses when it is in the best
interest of the ARRA to do so.
Seek clarification or additional information
from respondents as it deems necessary to
the evaluation of the response.
Request any additional information or
evidence from individual respondents,
including but not limited to evidence of the
developer's financial status.
Judge the developer's written or oral
representations as to their veracity,
substance and relevance to proposed Second
Campus development at Alameda Point,
including seeking and evaluating
independent information on any
development team.
Incorporate this RFQ and the selected
team's response to this RFQ as a part of any
formal agreement between the City and the
developer.
Modify the development opportunity
available to potential developers.
All documents, conversations, correspondence,
etc. between the ARRA and developers are
public information subject to the laws and
regulations that govern the ARRA, unless
specifically identified otherwise.
All expenses related to any developer's response to
this RFQ, or other expenses incurred during the
period of time the selection process is underway,
are the sole obligation .and responsibility of that
development tearn..The ARRA will not, directly
or indirectly, assume responsibility for these costs.
In addltlon, the ARRA shall not be liable for any
real estate commissions .or broker age fees which
may arise as a result of the developer selection
process.
The respondent shall not offer any gratuities,
favors, or anything of monetary value to any offi-
cial, employee, or outside consultant associated
with the development of the Second Campus at
Alameda Point for. purposes .of influencing
consideration of a response to this RFQ.
The ARRA males no representations about the con-
ditions of the site, including buildings, utilities,
soils, or other. surface or subsurface conditions.
The respondent shall make its own conclusions
concerning such conditions. Information provided
in this RFQ made available on the website or on
CDIDVD, or by ARRA staff, or consultants, is
provided for the convenience of the responders
Request for Qualifications for Developers
for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus at Alameda Point
only. The accuracy or completeness of this
in-formation is not warranted by the ARRA.
Contact: Ms. Laura. B. Crosb
Phone 510A95S26.0.7
Email lbcrosb
LBNL SECOND-CAMPUS
LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ 0103
ARTICLE 1. INTRODUCTION
The Regents of the University of California (University) manage Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory (LBNL, Berkeley Lab, the Laboratory), a federally funded research and development
center, under a prime contract with the US Department of Energy (DOE). Berkeley Lab
conducts unclassified research across a wide range of.disciplines.to deliver science -based
solutions to problems .of national significance, with a strong emphasis on energy efficiency and
carbon reduction. It employs approximately 4,200 scientists, engineers, support staff and
students. Eleven scientists associated with Berkeley Lab have won the .No.bel Prize.
Approximately 280 LBNL scientists hold a joint appointment with a University of California
campus.
Berkeley Lab's base budget for fiscal year 2010 was approximately $7 8 .million..A recent study
estimates the Laboratory's overall economic impact on the nine. San Francisco Bay Area
counties to be nearly $700 million annually. Technologies .developed at Berkeley. Lab have
generated billions of dollars in revenues, and thousands of jobs. Savings. as .a result of Berkeley
Lab developments in lighting and windows, and other energy efficient technologies, are in the
billions of dollars.
LBNL is located in the Berkeley hills, immediately.adjacent to the campus of the university of.
California, Berkeley. The University seeks to .deve.lop a .second LBNL campus .with the potential
for approximately 2 million gross square feet (GSF).of..r and .development facilities to
accelerate its pace of innovation, technology transfer, and com.mercializa ions creating high
quality jobs in the process. The new campus would consolidate approximately. 480,000 OSF of
leased laboratory and office space in the first phase of development. Existing programs in
leased facilities include Cenomics, Life Sciences, andPhysical Biosciences. The balance of the
development capacity would .allow for additional consolidation, growth of existing programs, new
initiatives, and co- location with UC Berkeley, other. Uc programs, and. complementary third
party.R &D organizations.
The University is issuing this Request for Qualifications .(RFQ) for the purpose of identifying a
short list of sites that best meet the Site. Attributes listed in Article 2. Accordingly, the University
is requesting eligible, organizations to submit a written response to this RFQ in accordance with
the schedule defined in Article 0.
The University intends to identify several sites.from the responses to this RFQ.and enter into
more detailed negotiations with .the .landowners and /or land representatives. ".Respondents
The results of these more detailed negotiations would .be the.final selection of a preferred site
for the second campus. It is the University's expectation that all short listed Respondents will
engage an entity with .appropriate development experience to participate in the detailed.
negotiations and.that the third party developer will construct the infrastructure and facilities. The
University inten.ds..to .finance the development of the site. However, the university will also
consider third party financing, or a combination of public and private financing, if such financing
would be more beneficial.
The University owns a.90.+ acre property in Richmond which is generally referred to as the
Richmond Field Station (RFS). RFS by and Jarge meets the parameters of the Site Attributes.
Respondents to this RFQ should know that the. University may choose to site the second
campus at RFS and will be evaluating potential sites relative to their ability to better meet the
needs of the University and the .DOE.
Page 2 of 14
LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ 0103
ARTICLE 2. SITE ATTRIBUTES
The university seeks to have the following attributes for its second campus, to the maximum
extent practicable:
1. The site should allow for the development of a state -of- the -art facility with a beautiful
environment that will be the location of choice for internationally recognized researchers.
It should allow for sustainable land use and circulation patterns, .maximizing density to
reduce overall building footprints and conserve open space. The site should allow for the
placement and massing of buildings to maximize shared views.
2. The location should be within an approximately 20 to 25- minute commute from the
existing LBN L main entrance at Blackberry Gate.
3. The site should have development capacity for approximately 2 million gross square feet
of laboratory, office, and support facilities.
4. The site should be able to accommodate future large -scale research activities, including
potential structures approximately 3,000 feet in length.
5. The second campus should be located in a welcoming community with a positive civic
expression of interest in development of the site and the resulting creation of. high quality
jobs.
0. The second campus should be located in a safe communityo ensure that employees,
visitors, and guests are safe when corning to /returning home from work.
7. The site should be readily accessible to a variety of .nodes of public transportation,
inclusive of local buses, mass transit (BART, Amtrak, and Ac Transit), and .shu .ttle
services. The site should allow for ADA accessible grade -level connections. The site
should allow safe bicyclist access from a designated bike path such as .the Bay Trail.
8. The site should be proximate to either existing or planned restaurants and cafes which
offer a range in price and food types, preferably within walking distance. The site should
be proximate to either existing or planned convenience. stores a post office, banks
and/or ATMs, auto repair /gas stations, child care facilities, hotels, and .motels. These
establishments should be no more than a 10- minute .commute. The site should be
proximate to existing or planned publicly- accessed recreational facilities such as
gymnasiums, health clubs, and outdoor fields.
9. The site should facilitate efficient constructability of facilities (buildings, parking
structures, bridges, etc.), infrastructure development (roads, underground utilities,
pedestrian walkways, etc.), and open space.
10. The site should allow for the development of sustainable land use and circulation
patterns which maximize bicycle, pedestrian and shuttle services.
11. The site should allow for electrical, natural gas, and water utilities for the lowest possible
cost.
12. The site should have, or it should be reasonably feasible to attain, unimpeded (not
.crossing public roads) access to public fiber optic paths (telephone, cable company or
third party) and dual cable entrance facilities.
13. The site should require minimal or no environmental remediation or have a funded plan
approved to address remediation. Any prior decontamination of the site should have
been in accordance with state and federal requirements.
Page 3 of 14
LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ 0103
14. The area surrounding the site should provide adequate separation from sources of
vibration (e.g. railways, freeways, etc.) or electromagnetic radiation (e.g. overhead
transmission lines or power substation) and the potential research facilities areas.
15. The site should have minimal overdraft (groundwater depletion) and groundwater related
subsidence. It should not be located in areas where .there is the risk of flooding caused
by storm related events, potential dam failure, or coastal hazards (including sea water
rise) that cannot be mitigated ,at a reasonable expense. If buildings exist on the site, they
should include systems for appropriate storm water management and wastewater
discharge related to existing aquifers, waterways, and storm water systems.
16. The site should have minimal occurrence of highly compressible ground surface
conditions (e.g. areas known or considered prone to liquefaction).
17. Any existing buildings that the. Respondent proposes for use by LBNL must meet the
current version of the University of California seismic requirements (or be rehabilitated to
meet those requirements), which can be found at:
http://www.ucop.edu/facil/resg/seismic-safety
ARTICLE 3. CONTENT OF THE RESPONSE
Each response to the RFQ must include the following:
1. General
A. Include a cover letter identifying the Respondent's name and address, solicitation
number and.title, and the name(s), title(s), email address, .and telephone number(s) of
the individuals who have commitment authority on behalf of the site.
2. Summary Statement
A. Provide a statement of the key reasons why this site should be short listed for further
consideration .as LBNL's second campus. 1 page maximum
B. Provide a summary of the site's .legal description, soil characteristics, environmental
condition, utilities, sustainable elements, existing facilities and tenants, unusual costs
associated with .constructing facilities, developer /land owner attributes, entitlement,
distance from LBNL, accessibility, local public transportation, service providers and
amenities proximate to the site, neighborhood characteristics, and local attitude toward a
project of this type and scale. 2 page .maximurn
3. Developer Land owner attributes:
A. Provide a brief descri ption of the Respondent's legal structure.
B. Provide a history of Respondent's business .experience in California, the Bay Area, and
the locality within which the proposed site exists.
Respondents are not expected lo have a development team or partnership identified at this
stage in the process. However, if such information is available Tease provide the following;
C. Describe the development partnership, if. any, proposed for the project. Provide a
description of the partnership skills, resources and, if the partnership has been formed,
the terms of the partnership agreement.
D. Describe the Respondent's willingness and ability to finance the development of the
second campus. Provide a history of the entity's financing experience for similar
projects.
Page 4 of 14
LBNL 2nd campus RI =Q 0103
B. Provide a copy of the Respondent's financial statements for the most recent three years.
The University will treat any financial information in the response to this RFQ as
proprietary.
4. Entitlement: fP /ease note: The University is generally exempt xempt from local jurisdictions having
land use authority. If the land is controlled by UC, UC may entitle the development Provide
the following information for purposes of comparison and to understand local land use
designations.l
A. Describe the current zoning of the site and the adjacent properties. Provide information
with respect to anticipated future zoning changes, types of change and associated
timeframes.
B. Describe the development capacity under the current zoning and /or the anticipated
zoning change(s). Provide massing studies if available, or otherwise describe potential
development capacity up to 2 million square feat.
C. Provide a listing of the local /state /federal authority approval(s) required for
development of the site and describe the process necessary to obtain the approvals.
5. Physical Site Characteristics
A. Legal Description
i. Name of the site: Provide a common, recognizable. name for file proposed second
campus to which it will be referenced by the Respondent.
ii. size of the site: Provide the size of the site in grass and .developable acreage with
current land and .property zoning requirements and restrictions for the parcel(s)
and /or buildings
iii. Location legal descri Lion: Provide the location of the site with the physical
address inclusive of street name and number, city, municipality, zip code, and
county. Provide the applicable parcel information, property vesting information, tax
and assessment information, tract number, subdivision number, legal lot number,
and document number.
iv. Title: Provide a preliminary title commitment and access to all underlying title
documents through an ftp (filetransfer protocol to transfer data from one computer
to another) website. If an entity other than the respondent controls portions of the
site, describe the relationship to the .respondent and method for securing fee
simple title. Also provide information on any other unrecorded rights including
leases that might affect development of the property.
v. Title Transfer: Describe the method for transferring fee title of the site to the
University (e.g. _purchase of the entire site .prior to construction, purchase upon
completion of the first phase, lease .purchase over time, or other, method of transfer
such as a gift) and the expected method for determining the purchase price (e.g.
appraisal, negotiated .price, dedication of land).
B. Soil Characteristics (to the extent known)
Groundwater level: Provide an assessment of the existing groundwater. levels
describing known aquifers, water cycles, overdraft (groundwater depletion), and
groundwater related subsidence, and /or seawater intrusion. Provide a description
of the known groundwater levels as they apply to the borders and site property
lines.
'age 5 of 14
LBNL 2nd Campus RFC 0103
ii. Geotechnical reports: Provide a description of the existing geotechnicai conditions
including the terrain and prior known land use, general. area geology, fault
proximity, landslides, and other concerns such as sink hole, fracturing .problems,
and risk of liquefaction. Provide the key findings of any formal reports developed
for the site and the web address of an ftp site where the full reports and files .can
be accessed.
iii. 'Vibration sources in vicinit Describe existing vibration sources within the vicinity
of the proposed site such as heavy vehicles.on conventional pavement and
existing rail systems.
iv. Constructabilit Describe the average depth of bedrock throughout the site.
Provide an assessment of constructability on the site with respect to .excavation for
foundations, underground utilities, subterranean parking structures., underground
storage tanks and the like which references the U.S. Geological Survey map and
map .database. for the 0akland .metropolitan area, Alarn.eda and Contra .costa
counties.
C. Environmental contamination:
i. Soil: Provide a description of previous removal or. treatment of contaminated soils.
ii. Groundwater Provide a description of previous removal or.treatment of
contaminated groundwater.
iii. current 1 Prior re ulato status: Describe the current prior regulatory status of
the proposed site with regard to contaminated soil and groundwater.
iv. Environmental clean adjacent to the site: Describe the .extent of past, current or
future environmental cleanup measures for properties within 2;000 feet of the
property.boundary.
v. Environmental studies: Describe the environmental studies that have been and/or
still need .to. be conducted for the site.. Provide. the key findings of any formal
reports developed for the and the web address of an ftp site where the full
reports and files can be accessed..
D. Site constraints: Provide a reap, or.series.of naps, of the site with the extent of all
development constraints clearly outlined and color coded.
i. Soil contamination: Describe the..ex ent of soil contamination (if any) on the
proposed site and the clean up required.
ii. Groundwater contamination: Describe the extent of groundwater contamination on
the. proposed .site.. and the clean up. required.
iii. Setback: Describe any restrictions that inhibit. development within a certain
distance from the property border or other boundaries.
iv. Special purpose land use restrictions: Describe any restrictions that inhibit
development within a certain area due to a special purpose designation (e.g. State
Tidelands, wildlife refuge.b.uffer, or, public. waterfront access).
V. utilities Right -of -ways Describe any restrictions or easements that .inhibit
developrne.nf within utilities rig ht- of- ways..D.escribe any nearby electromagnetic
radiation sources such as overhead transmission lines or power substations.
vi. Endangered species and protected habitats: Describe any restrictions that inhibit
development within areas designated .as protected habitats, wildlife habitats and
Page 6 of 14
LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ 0103
movement corridors (e.g. endangered domestic fish, wildlife, native plant species,
riparian and wetland habitats).
vii. Surface conditions: Describe any restrictions that inhibit development within areas
where there is an occurrence of highly compressible ground surface conditions
(e.g. areas known or considered prone to liquefaction).
viii. Municipality land use: Describe any land use constraints, zoning, development
density, zoning floor area ratios (F.A.R.), perimeter open space or parcel size
restrictions that may inhibit development of the site.
ix. Historic designation: Describe any historical, institutional, or contractual
constraints that may restrict development (e.g. National Register. listing, city charter
site planning provision, view corridors, designated architectural styles, circulation
frameworks, street design and landscaping).
x. Archeological assessment: Describe any archeological study areas with statutory
protections that may inhibit development.
xi. 1 00 -Year flood hazards: Describe any areas evaluated by the Federal. Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) program being designated as inundated .by a 100
year flood, Describe the site's elevation, or range of elevations, above sea level.
xii. Topographical: Describe any areas that significantly affect facility design (e.g.
steep slopes, areas of bedrock, significant ridgelines, and projected sea level rise).
Provide a topographical map with site boundaries clearly marked.
xiii. Areas of Severe Fire Dan er: Describe the prevailing wind patterns and any areas
notable for being within severe fire areas.
xiv. Fault zones: Describe any geologic constraints, (e.g. landslides and active fault
traces) that may restrict development of facilities.
xv. Open space designation and land conservation: Describe any reserved
undeveloped space or open space requirements that may restrict development of
the site.
xvi. Neighborhood interface: Describe any restrictions on development at the interface
between the surrounding neighborhood and the site.
E. Utilities (Availability /Capacity /Source)
i. Electricity Service Level: Describe the electrical service in both voltage and
amperage capacity available on or to the site noting how much electrical service is
readily available.
ii. Natural Gas Capacity: Describe the natural gas capacity that is available at the
site. Provide size of main and pressure.
iii. Water: Describe the available water sources to the site; provide the size of the
mains and available pressure.
iv. Telecommunications: Describe the available telephone and networking
infrastructures on or to the site and provide a list of telecommunications network
system operators within proximity to the site.
v. Storm and Sanitary Seger: Describe the storm water and sanitary sewer utilities
that currently serve the site. Describe control measures that are required for the
proposed site and list known restrictions, including required hazardous control
Page 7 of 14
LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ 0103
measures. Provide information on the wastewater treatment plant(s) that serve the
site.
F. Sustainable elements Describe the available or potential renewable energy elements of
the proposed site (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass). Address existing sustainable
elements with regard to brownfield redevelopment, protection and /or restoration of
habitat, or heat island effect and light pollution reduction strategies which are or may be
employed.
G. Existing Facilities and Tenants:
i. Provide a site plan to scale with locations of existing, above- ground pertinent
features (e.g. buildings, major utilities sources). Provide..a list of existing
buildings. Note year constructed, gross .square. footage, height, number of stories,
type of construction, condition of the structure, foundations type depth, and
general condition. Describe current use (e.g. lab., office, warehouse, shop, retail,
manufacturing, etc.
ii. Provide a list of the tenants in .each existing building and information with respect
to lease expiration, and any other relevant occupancy information (such as renewal
options and first rights of refusal for purchase the real estate).
iii. Provide a plan to vacate existing buildings on the. site inc[usi ve of schedule and
phasing of activities. Describe any costs associated with lease buyout .and
relocation.
iv. Provide a rough order -of- magnitude range of the cost associated with demolishing
any existing structures inclusive of buildings, operational yards, and underground
utilities and necessary abatement.
H. Unusual costs associated with constructing facilities at site:
i. Describe site characteristics which will increase construction cost, e.g. substantial
removal of industrial. equipment; re noval.of decommissioned underground storage
tanks; potential for archeological findings, etc.
ii. Describe .abnormal infrastructure costs .that would be associated with the
construction .of roads, curbs, gutters, streets, sidewalks, drainage systems and
utilities.
iii. Describe attributes of existing buildings and /or infrastructure which. can be. reused
or repurposed. Include age and condition of.structure and /or equipment and
provide a rough order --of- magnitude range of costs adequate for. necessary
refurbishment.
iv. Provide a rough order -of- magnitude range of the costs associated with
environmental cleanup to commercial standards as defined .by regulatory agencies.
Describe the scheduling and /or phasing of such activities..
6. Location characteristics:
A. Distance from LBNL Blackber Gate:
L Describe th.e distance and how it was measured from the proposed site to LBNL's
main entrance at Blackberry Gate..
ii. Describe average and peak commute times (and .how measured) to the proposed
site from LBNL's main entrance at Blackberry Gate (as shown in Article 16).
Page 8 ❑f 1 4
LBN L 2nd Campus RFQ 0103
B. Access:
i. Provide a description of the existing access conditions on and off the proposed
site. Describe the main arteries and accessible routes and proximity to existing
major streets, roadways or freeways and the potential impact that additional
vehicles may pose on these infrastructures.
C. Public Transportation:
i. Describe the current available modes of public transportation to and from the site
as well as the proximity of access to these services. Include access .to. available
parking facilities, local buses, mass transit (BART, Amtrak, and .AC Transit) and/or
available shuttle services. Describe routes of pedestrian access from these
services.
ii. Provide a description of additional public transportation planned for the site.
iii. Provide a description of the pedestrian and bicycle routes to and from the site.
D. Amenities associated with, or proximate to, the site and planned
i. Restaurants Cafes: Describe the immediate and .surround .area.food service
operations and establishments available to the site. Provide the type, side, prise
range and hours of operation for these entities, as well as an approximate. travel
distance from the site.
ii. Conference facilities: Describe the size of available conferencing facilities, type of
services available, price range, and hours of operation for these entities, as well as
an approximate travel distance from the site.
iii. Retail stores: Describe the immediate and surrounding area retail establishments
available to the site. Provide the type, size, price rang, and hours of operation for
these entities, as well as an approximate travel.distance from the site.
iv. Motels: Describe the immediate and surrounding area hotels, motels, and.
extended -stay estab.lishrnents available to the site. Provide the type, size, and
price range, as.well as an approximate travel distance from the site.
v. Recreation facilities: Describe the immediate and .surround area recreation
facilities (both indoor and outdoor) available to the site.. Provide the type, size, and
applicable usage price range, as well as an approximate travel distance from the
site.
E. Neighborhood characteristics:
L Provide a .description of the neighboring properties and associated land uses.
Describe the residential, commercial, industrial, and historic characteristics of the
surrounding properties.
ii. Describe any current .development in close proximity to the .site .which would be
complementary to scientific research and development. Provide information as to
size of the development and the types of buildings being developed.
iii. Identify the types and frequency of crimes in the neighborhood or locality.
iv. Describe any current or planned development in close proximity to the site which
would be detrimental to scientific research and development. Provide information
as to size of the development and types of buildings being developed. Describe
Page 9 of 94
LBNL 2nd campus RFQ 0103
impacts on access, public transportation, amenities and the neighborhood that
could affect the proposed site.
7. Local attitude toward a ro'ect of this type and scale:
A. Describe the civic expression of interest in development of the site for the second
campus.
B. Describe the potential financial incentives that may be offered for selection of the site
from the city, county, state, utilities, etc.
C. Describe potential items that would be required for development of the site such as a fire
station, utilities improvements, road improvements, open space, Bay Trail development,
etc.
D. Include letters of support from local municipalities, development agencies, neighborhood
groups, and commercial organizations.
ARTICLE 4. RFQ QUESTIONS
The University will respond to questions submitted in writing via email to Laura B. Crosby on or
before February 25, 2011 at or before 5 Pull (PST). Questions submitted after the stated
date may not be answered.
Put RFQ 0103 in the email subject line and send questions to:
Answers to questions that are germane to the interpretation of the University's requirements will
be posted with other relevant information and documents on the following website:
http://www.lbi.gov/Community/second-campus/
ARTICLE 5. AMENDMENTS
If necessary, the University will provide supplementary information in amendment form with
specific instructions. Amendments will be posted on the website listed in Article 4. Respondents
are encouraged to check the website periodically to obtain any new postings.
0 0:
Qualifications shall be submitted at or before 3 :00 PM PST on March 4 2011. submit 4
printed copies and one set of electronic files via email, flash drive, or ftp site to the addresses
listed below.
US M courier or Hand Delive Email
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LBCrosby @Ibl.gov
Procurement Attn. Laura B. Crosby
One Cyclotron Rd. —Mail Stop 76 -225
Berkeley, CA 94720 -8288
Respondents are responsible for assuring that qualifications are received in accordance with the
submittal requirements. If the qualifications are to be delivered in person, call or email Laura
Crosby (ph. 510.495.2607 Ibcrosby @Ibl.gov) on the day before the due date to arrange a
gate pass. There will be no public opening of qualifications and the identity of Respondents will
remain confidential until the short list of sites has been established.
Wage 10 of 14
LBNL 2nd campus RFQ 0103
Acceptance of late responses will be at the University's sole discretion. The University reserves
the right to reject any and all responses, to waive any minor irregularities in any response, and
to cancel this RFQ at any time without cost to the University.
The University will not reimburse any Respondent or be liable for the cost of preparing and
responding to this RFQ.
mood NOW 0 14r M
The University will treat any commercial or financial information in the response to this RFQ as
proprietary. The University prefers not to receive proprietary technical information. if the
proposal includes any proprietary technical information, it must be marked "Proprietary" or
equivalent. The University will use its reasonable efforts to (1) maintain such proprietary
information in confidence, giving it the same degree of care, but no less than a reasonable
degree of care, as it exercises with its own proprietary information to prevent its unauthorized
disclosure; and (2) only disclose such proprietary information to its employees, agents,
consultants, subcontractors or Government personnel who have a need to know in order to
achieve the goals stated within this RFQ.
RE X03
r
The University intends to short -list potential sites with the combination of features and attributes
that offer the best overall second campus location. The University will evaluate each response
based on the information provided, the University's own experience, and /or information from
public sources. The qualification criteria the University will use to evaluate sites include the
following factors (not listed in order of importance
1. Location and proximity to LBNL
2. Development capacity
3. Ability to provide a workplace environment which would facilitate world class research
4. Compatible surrounding neighborhoods
5. Environmental site constraints associated with development of the site
6. Public transportation accessibility
7. Proximity to amenities that enhance the workplace environment
8. Community support for the proposed development
9. Sustainable development potential
10. Existing and potential utilities capacity and the ability to secure low -cost utility service
11. Existing buildings potential for adaptive reuse
12. Ability to develop the site in a timely manner
13. Unusual costs associated with development of the site
14. Impact of other developments) in the surrounding neighborhoods
ARTICLE 9. REQUIREMENTS AFTER RESPONSE
The Respondents may be required to submit additional information which allows the University
to make a more informed decision about placing the site on the short list. Following submittal of
qualifications, some or all Respondents may be required to provide this additional information in
one or all of the following ways:
Page 7 I of 14
LBN L 2nd campus RFQ g 103
1. Respond to requests for clarifications
2. submit additional information upon request
3. Male a presentation and provide immediate responses to questions
ARTICLE 10. FUNDING
Funding for the development of the second campus will be identified following the identification
of a preferred site.
1 111 M
TFM
The University anticipates establishing a short list of the most suitable sites by April 2011. An
approximate schedule for the project is shown in the following table. The schedule is preliminary
and subject to change, depending on the outcome of each project phase.
Project Phase
Begin
End
Issue and Response to RFQ
January 3, .2011
March 4, 2011
Site selection short List by University
March 2011
Apri 1. 011
Site selection Detailed Negotiations
April 2011
June. 201 1
Select Preferred site
June 2011
June 2011
Preliminary Development Agreement
July 20711
September 2011
Conceptual Development Plan
September. 2011
June 201 2
Environmental Assessment
November 2.011
November 2012
Uni versity an d DoE Approvals
October 2012
November 201.2.
Design
July.2012
June.2.0.13.
Construction
July 20.13.
October 2015
Occupancy
.December 2015
ARTICLE 12. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
The University reserves the right to enter into discussion with any Respondent on any aspect of
this RFQ. The University further reserves the.r ight to request additional.. information or
clarification from any Respondent as. necessary. The expected result of this. RFQ is identification
of a short list of sites for further evaluation. The university does not anticipate entering into.a
contract as a result of this RFQ.
By participation in this RFQ process, the Respondent agrees to .hold harmless.the University, its
officers, employees, student and consultants from all claims, liabilites.and costs related to all
aspects of the selection process.
The University reserves the right, in its. sole .and absolute discretion, to discuss the requirements
of this RFQ or any element of a respons o this RFQ with any entity. If the University elects to
enter into such discussions with any entity, the University shall have no obligation to give notice
to any other entity of the fact or content of such discussions.
Page 12 of 14
LBN L 2nd Campus RFO 0103
ARTICLE 13. REAL ESTATE BROKER/AGENT REPRESENTATION
The University is not represented by any real estate broker and/or agent. Any agent, broker or
other support~ used in responding to this RFO shall be payable by the Respondent.
ARTICLE 14. PREFERRED SITE IDENTIFICATION
The University will conduct a more comprehensive review of each site selected for the short list
in order to identify a preferred site. Short listed sites without a development partner will have the
opportunity to assemble their development team in order to conduct detailed negotiations. The
Respondents for each of the short listed sites will be required to submit detailed information that
will allow the University to make a preferred site selection based substantially on the following
factors:
1. Location
2. Ability to meet mission objectives
3. Schedule
4. Initial and Life -cycle cost
6. Risks
6. Potential for environmental impacts
7. Respondent's experience and past development performance.
It is expected that additional factors may also be considered. The University reserves the right
to negotiate with any one or more Respondent upon terms that may differ from the terms and
conditions originally solicited or offered. The Department of Energy and the Regents of the
University of California must approve the University's execution of any transaction related to the
second campus
ARTICLE 15E ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This RFQ, the identification of a short list of sites, and the identification of a preferred site are
not actions that trigger environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Appropriate environmental
assessments will be completed prior to UC and DOE approvals.
Page 13 of 14
LBNL 2nd campus RFQ 0103
END of RFQ# 0103
Page 14 of 14
ARTICLE 16. LBNL BLACKBERRY CANYON. GATE LOCATION
The map shorn below highlights the location of the Blackberry Canyon. Gate main .entrance to
LBNL. Driving times to the proposed site should be measured from this location. The. gate is on
Cyclotron Road, which turns into Hearst Avenue on the north side of the LAC, Berkeley campus.
a.
lot:
Exhibit 3
Acceptance of Conditions
Certification Form
Statement of Qualifications for
Developers for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Second Campus for Alameda Point
Proposer's Certification
I have carefully examined the Request for Qualifications and any other documents
accompanying or made a part of the Request for Qualifications.
I have agreed to abide by all conditions of this proposal.
I certify that all information contained in this proposal is truthful to the best of nay knowledge and belief..l
further certify that I am duly authorized to submit this proposal on behalf of the vendor /contractor as its
act and deed and that the vendor /contractor is ready, willing, and able to perform if awarded the contract.
I further certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, connection, discussion,
or collusion with any other person, firm or corporation submitting Statements of Qualification for the same
product or service; no officer, employee or agent of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment .Authority or
of any other proposer interested in said proposal; and that the undersigned executed this Proposer's
Certification with full knowledge and understanding of the matters therein contained and was duly
authorized to do so.
SIGNATURE
NAME OF BUSINESS, TYPED OR PRINTED
NAME TITLE
ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
PHONE
Russell Resources, lnc,.
environmental management
Alameda Point RAB Meeting on January 6, 2011
Highlights and Analysis
RAB members present Dale Smith (Community Co-Chair), George Humphreys, Joan Konrad
Jaynes Leach, Jean Sweeney, Jim. Sweeney, and Michael John Torrey.
Rernedi ation and other field work in ro press
o A Navy/EPA/University of Florida field research study is in progress at Plume: 4 -1,
immediately north of Building 360 near Alameda Point's east entrance. The research
focuses on better characterizing the solvent contamination in groundwater prior to
remedy selection and design. This research should improve not only the Navy's .cleanup
of OU -2B groundwater, but similar contamination elsewhere.
o A pilot test of groundwater treatment at the IR Site 1 landfill, which .began in .October, is
still underway.
o Groundwater monitoring is ongoing to assess the effectiveness of rernediation at IR Site 6
(Building 41, Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Facility), IR Site 14 (former. fire training
area in Northwest Territory, along Oakland Inner Harbor), Ili. Site. 2d (northernmost
hangar in the western hangar row), and IR Site 28 (Todd Shipyards).
Radiological status surveys of selected buildings to rule out potential radiological
residues are ongoing.
The air spargelvapor extraction system to treat groundwater contaminated with benzene
and naphthalene at Alameda Point OU -5 and FIS CA IR Site 2 is operating.
o Most of the petroleum contaminated groundwater treatment operation near. the .Atlantic
Avenue entrance has been completed. However, further groundwater treatment. is :being
conducted in a small area near the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Ot on Street where
higher petroleum levels persist.
o Dredging of the northeast and northwest corners of Seaplane Lagoon .began in early
January. The dredging is scheduled to continue until March 15, 2011, when it will have to
be terminated due to least -tern habitat considerations. The Navy expects to have
completed all planned dredging activities by that date.
OU -2C Revised .Draft Feasibility Stud
The Navy presented an overview of its revised draft Feasibility Study for OU 7 2C, which
currently is available for review and comment by the environmental .regulatory agencies, the
RAB, and others. OU -2C consists of IR Site 5 (Building 5, the Aircraft Rewo0c Facility), IR Site
10 (Building 400, the Missile Rework Facility), and Ili. Site 12 (Building 10, the Power Plant).
The Navy had published an earlier. draft FS for +VDU -2C, but in consultation with the BCT decided
to revise it to address important comments it received.
Since the May 2009 draft FS was published, the Navy expanded the FS's scope to include
cleanup of many potentially radiologically contaminated storm drains beneath Buildings 5 and
400. The FS's cost estimate to remove these storm drain lines (and potentially contaminated soil
RRI, 449 Nova Albion Way, Suite 3, Son Rafael, California 94993 415.902.3123 fax 8. 5.572.86'99 Agenda Item #4 -A
AR RA
2 -2 -2011
Page 2 of 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting, January 6, 2011
February 2, 2011 Highlights and Analysis
associated with them) adds more than $5o million to the soil clean -up cost estimates in the draft
FS. As an alternative, the FS estimates the cost would be much less if institutional controls were
utilized to maintain the buildings' floor slabs in perpetuity. Several RAB members expressed
concern that institutional controls, such as deed restrictions and inspections, would not reliabl
prevent people from being exposed to the radiological contamination under the floor slabs in the
future. To supplement this FS the Navy is in the process of preparing an FS Addendum to
address cleanup of radiologically contaminated storm drain lines that are outside the buildings'
footprints. These storm drain lines flow to Oakland Inner Harbor and the northeast corner of the
Seaplane Lagoon.
As with the draft FS, the revised draft FS develops several alternatives to clean up solvent
contaminated groundwater, principally under Building 5. Most alternatives would remediate
groundwater to allow commercial /industrial reuse of Building S and areas immediately east and
south of it, and to allow unrestricted reuse elsewhere within OU -2C.
Conveyance Status and Redevelopment Planning Status
Ms. Jennifer Ott, Alameda Deputy City Manager, and Ms. Array Jo I1ill, the Navy's Deputy Base
Closure Manager, updated the RAB on various issues surrounding transfer of the former Naval
Air Station, Alameda to the City and its subsequent redevelopment and reuse. Ms. Hill answered
RAB members' questions about the Public Benefit Conveyance of the Sports Complex site, VA
transfer parcels, wetlands, the Miller School, and forth Housing. Ms. Ott described the City's
effort to garner public input for Alameda Point redevelopment options. She distributed copies of
community workbooks that had been used at the recent City workshops.
RRl, 440 Nova Albion {Nay, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3. 23 fax 815.572.8500