The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-06-02 ARRA PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 390 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Wednesday, June 2, 2004 Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. City Hall will open at 5:15 p.m. 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of December 16, 2003. 2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of March 3, 2004. 2 -C. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 7, 2004. 2 -D. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 5, 2004. 3. PRESENTATION 3 -A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 4 -A. Recommendation to approve a 15 -month consultant agreement with ROMA Design Group in the amount of $587,595 for Master Land Planning at Alameda Point. 5. ORAL REPORTS 5 -A. Oral report from APAC. 5 -B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. 5 -C. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.) 7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY ARRA Agenda — June 2, 2004 Page 2 8. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: 8 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 7, 2004. Notes: • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary, Irma Frankel at 749 -5800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. • Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. • Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, December 16, 2003 The meeting convened at 5:55 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda Absent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of September 3, 2003. 2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of October 1, 2003. 2 -C. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of October 14, 2003. Member Gilmore indicated two concerns regarding the Consent Calendar. Item 2 -B, October 1, 2003 minutes should reflect that Member Matarrese participated via teleconference for the Closed Session portion of the meeting as he was out of the country. Member Daysog was not present for the October 1, 2003 meeting. Item 2 -C, October 14, 2003 minutes, Member Gilmore was present for the entire meeting. Member Kerr motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes -0; Abstentions -0. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS There were no regular agenda items. 1 G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\A RRA\ MIiNUTES \2003\Dec16_03_spcciad.ARRA minutes.doc 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -B. Oral report from APAC. Chair Lee Perez reported that the APAC October 2003 Townhall meeting held was extremely successful and beneficial to the community and constituents of Alameda. The event was also well attended. 4 -A. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). There was no oral report from the Executive Director. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.) There were no oral communications. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY There were no communications from the Governing Board. 7. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: 7 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms Mayor Johnson announced that the ARRA Board obtained a briefing from real property negotiators and a progress report was given. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 6:10 p.m. 11spect,f Ily submitted, IIIRcretia A RRA Secretary 2 G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp\A RRA\ MINUTES \2003\Dec16_03_Special.ARRA minutes.doc ' APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, March 3, 2004 The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of January 13, 2004. Member Gilmore motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was seconded by Member Kerr and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -5; Noes -0; Abstentions-O. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Recommendation from the Executive Director that the ARRA governing body consider designating one of its members to apply for membership on the Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board. Member Matarrese agreed to accept the appointment by the ARRA Board as representative on the Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) for a period of one -year. City Manger Jim Flint stated that an Oral Report Item for the RAB representative will be added to the monthly ARRA agenda for the one -year period. Member Kerr motioned for approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -5; Noes -0; Abstentions -0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from APAC. Chair Lee Perez reported that APAC has been in discussion of how to best provide support and input to the ARRA Board and will come back to the ARRA with a formal proposal in the future. 1 G ; \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2004\3 -3 -04 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc; 4 -B. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). There was no oral report from the Executive Director. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.) There were no oral communications. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY There were no communications from the Governing Board. 7. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: 7 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms Mayor Johnson announced that an update was provided by real property negotiators. No action was taken. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 5:45 p.m. iiespectfully submitted, L +cretia Akil ARRA Secretary 2 G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2004\Mar3_04 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, April 7, 2004 The meeting convened at 5:40 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 4, 2004. Member Kerr motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes -0; Abstentions -1 (Daysog). 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS There were no regular agenda items. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from APAC. Chair Lee Perez reported that APAC will present its report to the ARRA Board after the Alameda Point Land Use consultant is hired to ensure that all information is presented to the ARRA in a concise manner. 4 -B. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). There was no oral report from the Executive Director. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.) There were no oral communications. 1 G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2004 \4 -7 -04 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY There were no communications from the Governing Board. 7. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: 7 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms Mayor Johnson announced that ARRA received a briefing from its real property negotiator. Direction was given to real property negotiator to negotiate a contract with ROMA, a land use consultant, in which the contract is to be presented in public session at the next ARRA meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 5:42 p.m. ully submitted, Ldcretia Akil ARRA Secretary 2 G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp\ ARRA\ MINUT [S\2004\Apr7_04_Regular,ARRA minutes.doc APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, May 5, 2004 The meeting convened at 5:55 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Barbara Kerr, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Recommendation to accept the work of Blocka Construction, Inc. for Alameda Naval Air Museum, renovations to Building 77. Member Kerr asked when is the Air Museum expected to be operational? Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager indicated that they are expected to be open in Spring 2005. Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Member Kerr and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -5; Noes -0; Abstentions -0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from APAC. Chair Lee Perez reported that APAC has endorsed and created a sub -group to work ROMA, the prospective AP Land Use Consultant, to assist and prepare in the master planning efforts for Alameda Point. The APAC is looking forward to this continuing in this process. 4 -B. Oral report from the Executive Director (non- discussion items). There was no oral report from the Executive Director. 1 G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\3004\5 -5 -04 Regular.ARRA miuutes.doc 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.) There were no oral communications. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY There were no communications from the Governing Board. 7. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR: 7 -A. Property: Alameda Naval Air Station Negotiating parties: ARRA, Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners Under negotiation: Price and Teniis Mayor Johnson announced that real property negotiators briefed the ARRA and received instructions from ARRA Boardmembers. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 6:05 p.m. espectfully submitted, Lucretia Akil ARRA Secretary 2 G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2004\May5_04 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc Presented to the ARRA Board June 2, 2004 wvatarammiezwst-Agitigialiggemz=anzmanaislre ARRA' s New Lead Role and Relationship with the Master Developer — APCP Developing a Fresh Approach with the Navy to Resolve Outstanding Issues Related to the Conveyance of Alameda Point it Engage the Community in a Collaborative Process to Prepare Plans for Implementation ALAMEDA Principal ARRA Tasks Under the Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA) ARRA -Led Predevelopment Period • Prepare and Negotiate a Disposal Strategy for Alameda Point with the U.S Navy ■ Re- Engage the Navy in Transfer Discussions ■ Identify a Method of Conveyance, Timetable, and Prioritization Preference for the Delivery of Specific Parcels to the ARRA ■ Establish Defined Standards for Clean -up of Parcels that will Facilitate Implementation of a Preliminary Development Concept /Land Use Plan for Alameda Point ■ Formal Agreement that Informs Preparation of Transfer Documents Principal ARRA Tasks Under the Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA) ARRA -Led Predevelopment Period ■ Preliminary Development Concept ■ Plan for the Redevelopment and Reuse of Alameda Point Describing Location, Size, Type, Density and Intensity of Land Uses for Each Sub -Area ■ Developed Over the Next 12 Months • Plan is Informed Supporting Documents /Technical Studies (e.g., Reuse Plan, General Plan, and APCP Concept Plan) • Coincides with and Informs the Navy's Conveyance Plans • Basis for Completing Mitigation/Clean-Up of Environmental Hazards — Tied to Navy Environmental Program ALAME1)A Key Activities During ARRA -Led Predevelopment Period ARRA Work Team Activities: Navy Disposal /Remediation: Methodology for Conveyance Coordinate with Navy Regarding Cleanup Coordinate with Environmental Regulators Coordinate with State Lands Commission Governmental Affairs Strategy (Navy, Regulators, Elected Officials, etc.) Land Use Planning: Land Use Planning Technical Studies Transportation Planning Community Engagement ARRA -Led Period Re- Engage Navy — Refine the Approach Building on Prior Work Obtain Consensus on Strategy (Navy, Env. Regulators, ARRA) Prepare and Refine Potential Land Use Scenarios Preliminary Developmen Concept Re- Engage the Navy in Transfer Discussions •Establish Relationship Between the City and Key Senior Navy Personnel in Washington DC •Hold Meetings with Senior Navy Staff f at Southwest Division in San Diego •Conduct Workshops and Working Group Meetings wiNavy to Discuss and Resolve Key Issues •Goal: Develop a Planning Framework that Provides "Value" to Both Parties and Advances the Conveyance Process Proposed Navy-ARRA Joint Working Structure Sr. Project Managers Navy — Ron Plaseied ARRA — Stephen Proud ° 40.e0.0,f-eicOQIiitA-IV4i#014,,AS Status of "No- Cost" EDC Business Plan 1997 Business Plan Assumed Conveyance by 2000 - Economic Context No Longer Applicable to the Property Dot -Com Bust Resulted in 100 Million Square Feet of Vacant Office/R &D space in the Bay Area. This is Estimated to Take 7 -10 Years to Absorb into the Market Oversupply of Office/R &D Space that was Expected to Drive the Economics of Alameda Point Now Adversely Impacts the Project Strong housing demand has driven home prices in Alameda County from a median of $211,000 in 1997 to $405,000 in 2002, resulting in a 92 percent increase in home prices Substantial increase in infrastructure and environmental remediation costs Land Use Plans for Alameda Point (1997 2003) Land Use 1997 EDC 1999 Reuse Plan 2002 General Plan Non-Residential Residential 5.6 million Sq. Feet 329 Units 5.5 million Sq. Feet 2.3 million Sq. Feet 1,171 Units 1,928 Units No -Cost EDC + Early Transfer (FOSET) or Cost EDC + Early Transfer w/ESCA (FOSET) or Combination of Cost/No -Cost EDC and/or Negotiated Sale Navy Conveyance Strategy: Next 60 Days Business Plan Agreement on Assumptions Review Preliminary Model Results Agreement on Model Values Land Use Plan Agreement on Project Constraints Review Draft Land Use Scenarios Prioritize Parcels for Clean-Up Develop Draft Conveyance Strategies Environmental Identify Range of Potential Land Uses Identify and Conduct Data Gaps Analysis Prioritize Parcels for Clean-Up Meeting Dates — May 3rd -4th and May 18th Business/Land Use and Environmental Working Groups 14 Discussed Format for Economic Analysis and Key Inputs Discussed Environmental Condition and Prospective Land Uses Provided Overview of East Housing Project Provided Information on Land Use Planning Process and Solicited Input on Key Factors Affecting Development • Initial Navy Disposal Strategy: Fall 2004 • Full Navy Disposal Strategy: Spring 2005 • PDC Completed: June 2005 Next Three ARRA/Navy Meetinj' Dates June 8, 2004 June 29, 2004 July 21, 2004 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum May 25, 2004 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: James M. Flint, Executive Director RE: Recommendation to Approve a 15 -month Consultant Agreement with ROMA Design Group in the Amount of $587,595 for Master Land Planning at Alameda Point Background On January 15, 2004, the Alameda Point Land Use Team issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a land use planning and community engagement consultant team to the City in the preparation of a Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point. The City received nine (9) Statements of Qualifications in response to the RFQ. On February 24, 2004 a multi - disciplinary selection team of city staff including Alameda Point Advisory Committee representative Patti Anne Parker, Planning Board representative Gary Bard and APCP representative Aidan Barry reviewed the nine Statements of Qualifications and selected six (6) firms for interviews. On March 2, 2004 the Selection Team interviewed the top six firms. Based upon the interviews, the Selection Team unanimously agreed that SMWM and ROMA Design Group (ROMA) were significantly more qualified and better prepared to provide the necessary services than the other four firms interviewed. The Selection Team recommended that the staff conduct a more intensive review of each firm's cost proposal and scope of work before making a final selection. Based upon that recommendation, staff asked both teams to submit a revised cost proposal and scope of services. To facilitate the comparison between the two firms, staff requested that both teams make certain common assumptions about total budget, the scope of the community process, and the final deliverable. Based upon a review of the final submittal and a final interview with each team on March 16th, the Alameda Point Project Team identified ROMA as the preferred land use consultant for the following reasons: 1) For the same cost to the City, ROMA committed significantly more time from their firm's principals to the project. 2) ROMA demonstrated a significantly better understanding of the project and the tasks and strategies that might be utilized to overcome the many obstacles to successful reuse of the site. 3) ROMA showed a greater understanding of the complexities of the land use planning effort, the sensitivities of the Navy conveyance process, and the need to carefully coordinate the two efforts. 4) ROMA's recent work on the Oakland Estuary Plan, the reuse of the Austin Airport, the Suisun City waterfront, and the Treasure Island Reuse Plan demonstrated their ability to assist the City overcome many of similar technical and design issues that will need to be overcome in the development of a financially feasible development concept for Alameda Point. "Dedicated to Excellence, Conunitted to Service" Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 25, 2004 Page 2 Upon conclusion of the selection process, the Alameda Point Project Team recommended that the Executive Director execute a short term interim contract with ROMA to employ ROMA's expertise and land use planning skills to support the ongoing Navy negotiations. The 2 -month interim contract enabled ROMA to provide immediate support to the Conveyance Team's ongoing discussions with the Navy and provided time for ROMA and the project team to completely assess the extent and adequacy of past technical studies and the additional technical support that will be needed to prepare the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC). Discussion Based upon ROMA's excellent qualifications and their performance under the interim contract in support of the ongoing Navy negotiations, the Alameda Point Project team is recommending that ROMA Design Group provide land use and community engagement services for the duration of the ARRA lead predevelopment period through July 2005. The recommended contract, which includes a budget not to exceed $587,595 will provide the ARRA with the land use planning, community engagement, transportation planning and civil engineering and infrastructure planning services needed during the ARRA led predevelopment planning period to complete the Preliminary Development Concept. Attachment A includes a detailed summary of the services that will be provided under the contract and the two sub consultants that will support ROMA's work. The full contract and scope of services is on file in the City Clerk's office for public review. In addition to the technical services that the ROMA team will be providing to the ARRA, ROMA will also be assisting the ARRA engage the community in the planning process. The proposed community process will begin this summer and conclude in summer 2005 with the completion of the Preliminary Development Concept. During the one year period there will be a series of meetings including: 1) Community Meetings. Approximately five large community meetings will be held over the course of the year. These full or half day meetings will provide an opportunity to introduce the community to specific issues that need to be resolved or alternatives that need reviewed and narrowed. The community meetings will be closely coordinated with the on -going negotiations with the Navy and will be structured to respond to issues that will arise during the Navy conveyance discussions. These meetings will be widely noticed to encourage maximum participation by the Alameda community, and they will be structured to provide an opportunity for the community to provide guidance on how best to resolve these issues and balance competing needs or tradeoffs. The community meetings will include presentations of alternative site plans and ideas and/or planning exercises designed to gauge public acceptance of certain ideas, designs, or strategies. 2) Regular ARRA Board Presentations. Regular "check -ins" with the ARRA Board will provide the Board with the opportunity for input into the planning process. 3) Other Boards and Commissions. In addition to the large community meetings, there will be periodic meetings throughout the year with various boards and commissions, such as the APAC, the Planning Board, the Economic Development Commission and other Boards and Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service O: \Cotndev \Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\STAFFREP\2004\ROMA Contract Staff Report_0602O4.doc Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 25, 2004 Page 3 Commissions as necessary to receive further input for ARRA consideration at the ARRA monthly meetings. 4) City Website: In addition to the public meetings, the project team will maintain a web page on the City Website with the most current information and issues for discussion. Opportunities will be made available for the community to transmit their comments and concerns via e -mail to the project team. These transmittals will be made available to the ARRA Board and the community throughout the process. Fiscal Impact The $587,595 necessary to fund these services is consistent with and slightly less than the preliminary budget presented to the ARRA Board for land use planning for Alameda Point. The funds are currently available and set aside for these activities through bond funds secured by Alameda Point lease revenues to fund the ARRA led pre - development period planning activities contemplated under the CAA. Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the ARRA Governing Board authorize the Executive Director to execute a 15 -month consultant agreement with ROMA Design Group in the amount of $587,595 for Master Land Planning at Alameda Point. JF/PB /GF /AT Res s ectfully submitted, P 1 Benoit eputy Executive Director By: Greg Fuz Planning and Building Director Attachment A: Detailed Summary of Recommended Scope of Services Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Comlev \Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\STAFFREP\2004\ROMA Contract Staff Report.2_060204doc Attachment A: Summary of Recommended Scope of Services Land Use Planning ROMA will act as the City's lead planning consultant for Alameda Point. In this role, ROMA will assist the Project Team develop a land use plan that is financially feasible, that implements the Reuse Plan and the community's objectives, that is closely coordinated and consistent with the Navy remediation plan for the site, and that fulfills the ARRA's commitments under the CAA. ROMA will work closely with the City's economic consultant, Economic Planning Systems (EPS), to test alternative site plans for financial feasibility. The EPS services are being provided under a separate contract. The final result of this multi- disciplinary effort will be the Preliminary Development Concept for Alameda Point. Community Engagement ROMA will assist the Project Team engage the community in the planning process. The objective of the community process is to engage the community in the development and completion of the Preliminary Development Concept, which will outline the City's specific land use and development expectations for Alameda Point. The community process would begin in the summer of 2004 and conclude in June 2005 with the completion of the Preliminary Development Concept. During the one year period there will be a series of meetings which are described above in the body of the staff report. Transportation Planning. As envisioned in the Community Reuse Plan, the General Plan, and the APCP business plan, the land use plan for Alameda Point should be accompanied by a transportation strategy. The Alameda Point transportation strategy will need to be a phased strategy that is closely coordinated with the phases of development envisioned in the land use plan or Preliminary Development Concept. As the number of jobs and households increase with each phase of development at Alameda Point, the transportation program and facilities will need to grow to accommodate the project's additional transportation demands. Consequently, the Preliminary Development Concept to be completed during the next 15 months will be accompanied by a Preliminary Transportation Strategy, which outlines the transportation plan for each phase of development. The Transportation Strategy will include address the following series of questions: 1) Transit Oriented Design. How can the land use plan or the mix of uses be altered to reduce traffic from the project? 2) Trip Generation. How much traffic will be generated by each phase of the development and what will the effect of that traffic be on key intersections and gateways to Alameda (i.e. tubes and bridges)? 3) TDM Strategies What transportation demand management strategies (transit incentives, guaranteed ride home services, car share facilities, parking restrictions, etc.) can and should be implemented with each phase of the development? How much traffic reduction can be expected from those strategies? 4) Transportation Services What additional transportation services (shuttles to BART, ferry services, additional AC Transit services, etc.) should be provided with each phase of the development? How much additional traffic reduction can be expected from these additional services? Attachment A 5) Estuary Crossings. Is the aerial tram or another type of new estuary crossing, (i.e. BART extension, light rail, etc.) technically, politically, and financially feasible? How much additional traffic reduction can be expected from these new crossings, what are there costs, what are the technical and/or permitting obstacles to implementation? To address the project specific questions (primarily questions #1 through #4 above) and support the land use planning and community engagement process, Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants is included as a sub consultant to ROMA. Fehr & Peers is a well- qualified transportation planning firm that has extensive experience with similar projects, such as Hamilton Air Force Base, Mare Island Reuse, and the Presidio Trust. Fehr & Peers was also the transportation consultant on the Alameda Naval Air Station Community Reuse Plan. Fehr & Peers worked on the project under contract to APCP for over three (3) years during which they have completed approximately 1,500 hours of work on the project's transportation issues. It is essential that the Project Team build upon, improve, and further refine the work that was previously completed by Fehr & Peers for APCP and the ARRA. The most cost effective means to doing this is to include Fehr & Peers on the project team. To address the feasibility of the aerial tram and the estuary crossings question, the project team is proposing to use a Federal Transportation Administration (FIA) Grant which was received by the City for this purpose. To facilitate access to these funds, city staff has held several meetings with staff from BART, which is an agency authorized and equipped to receive federal grants for these types of planning efforts. At this time, it appears that it will be most cost effective to partner with BART through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Among other things, the MOA would establish BART's responsibility to receive and account for the use of the federal funds and Alameda's responsibility to manage the consultant work, public process, and review of final work products. The MOA may also include a financial set aside to reimburse both BART and the City for staff time spent administering the grant funds, providing technical support (BART engineering staff), or staff time to support the consultant work or community engagement process. At a the July ARRA Board meeting, the Alameda Point project team will return with a more detailed discussion of the scope for the estuary crossing study and a draft MOA with BART. All of the transportation studies for Alameda Point conducted during the ARRA led predevelopment period will be closely coordinated with, and inform, the concurrent work effort to prepare a Transportation Master Plan proposed by the Transportation Commission. Civil Engineering Technical Support. To ensure a financial feasible development concept that does not depend on General Fund support, the PDC must include an infrastructure and site improvement plan and cost estimates that identifies how the site will be prepared for development (i.e. soil stabilization, flood hazard mitigations, etc) and how the development will be served by public utilities and infrastructure (i.e. location of main lines, pump stations, etc). The infrastructure and site improvement plan should include a phasing plan showing the location and extent of major components of sewage, storm water, solid waste, water, energy and other essential facilities proposed to support each phase of the PDC. APCP has completed a significant amount of work evaluating the existing infrastructure and identifying potential 2 Attachment A improvement phasing plans to accommodate a phased development of the site. The project team believes it is important to build upon, refine, and improve upon the work already completed by APCP to map all the site constraints and opportunities as well as alternative development concepts on a CAD based or GIS based system to support the work of the team, support the work of the community engagement firm, and provide access to information on the project on the internet for the community. The ROMA contract includes Carlson, Barbee and Gibson (CBG) as the civil engineering sub consultant to provide these services. CBG has worked on the project under contract to APCP for over three (3) years and during that period has completed approximately 5,000 hours of work on the project. Given their recent history with the project, CBG is uniquely qualified to assist ROMA and ARRA address the engineering and cost estimating issues that will need to be addressed over the course of the next year. In addition to their recent work on Alameda Point, CBG also worked on similar projects such as Fort Ord, Mare Island, and the Hamilton Air Force Base. Historic Preservation: The ROMA contract does not currently include a historic preservation consultant. On May 24th, the City received four (4) responses to an RFP for historic preservation services. After completion of the review of the responses, the project team will return to the ARRA Board with a recommendation for a historic preservation consultant and scope of services to augment the project team and further inform the Preliminary Development Concept. 3 Attachment A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 2 ICi day of June 2004, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Join (hereinafter referred to as "ARRA "), and ROMA Design Group, a California corporation, whose address is 1527 Stockton Street, San Francisco, California 94133 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. ARRA is a Joint Powers Authority established by the City of Alameda and the Community Improvement Commission under the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act and a public entity lawfully created and existing under the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted. B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein; and D. ARRA and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for services upon the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1 TERM: f The term of this Agreement shall commence on the ftc day of June 2004, and shall terminate on the 1st day of September 2005, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED: Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT: Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount set forth in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the ARRA, to be taken from the Alameda Point Refunding Bond 2003. Alameda Point Master Planning Consultant Agreement 1 4. TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE: The Consultant acknowledges the importance to the ARRA of the ARRA's project schedule and agrees to put forth reasonable efforts in performing the services with due diligence under this Agreement in a manner consistent with that schedule, as provided in Exhibit A. 5. STANDARD OF CARE: Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the ARRA nor have any contractual relationship with ARRA. 6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES: ARRA and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of employer - independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by ARRA to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from ARRA to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer- employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant. 7. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA): Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of his /her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold ARRA harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Consultant. 8. NON - DISCRIMINATION: Consistent with ARRA's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a ARRA employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 9. HOLD HARMLESS: Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless ARRA, its Board, officials, employees, and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to Consultant's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Alameda Point Master Planning Consultant Agreement 2 Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultant shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on part of Consultant. However, Consultant shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees. Indemnification For Claims for Professional Liability: As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend and indemnify Indemnitees (as set forth above) is limited to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of consultant or anyone for whom consultant is legally liable. 10. INSURANCE: On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish ARRA with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice (or ten (10) days' notice in the event of cancellation for non- payment of premium) to the ARRA of Alameda by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to ARRA and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the ARRA as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. A. COVERAGE: Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: (1) Workers' Compensation: Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. (2) Liability: Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate - all other Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence $250,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. (3) Automotive: Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence Alameda Point Master Planning Consultant Agreement 3 or Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence (4) Professional Liability: Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. B. SUBROGATION WAIVER: Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to his /her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to ARRA, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or ARRA with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against ARRA by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. C. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, ARRA shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. D. ADDITIONAL INSURED: ARRA, its Board, officials, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by ARRA are not represented as being sufficient to protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Consultant. 11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California Code of Regulations. Alameda Point Master Planning Consultant Agreement 4 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS: Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of ARRA. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from ARRA under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to ARRA by Consultant. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the corporation. 13. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL: Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. 14. PERMITS AND LICENSES: Consultant, at his /her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 15. REPORTS: A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of ARRA. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute appropriate documents to assign to ARRA the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of ARRA, and all publication rights are reserved to ARRA. B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by ARRA in execution or implementation of: (1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired; (2) Completion of the original Project by others (provided that if the Consultant for any reason does not complete all the services contemplated by this Agreement, the Consultant cannot be responsible Alameda Point Master Planning Consultant Agreement 5 for the accuracy, completeness or workability of the documents prepared by the Consultant if used, changed or completed by the ARRA or by another party. Accordingly, the ARRA agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to hold the Consultant harmless from any claim, liability or cost (including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs) for injury or loss arising or allegedly arising from such use, completion or any unauthorized changes made by any party to any documents prepared by the Consultant); (3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and /or (4) Other ARRA projects as appropriate. C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as ARRA may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, which shall be single sided. E. No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant without prior approval by ARRA. 16. RECORDS: Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by ARRA that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of ARRA or its designees at all proper times, and gives ARRA the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by ARRA's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the ARRA's supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse ARRA for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit. 17. NOTICES: All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second Alameda Point Master Planning Consultant Agreement 6 business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to ARRA shall be addressed to ARRA at: City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda CA 94501 Attention: Greg Fuz, Planning and Building Director All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from ARRA to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: ROMA Design Group 1527 Stockton Street San Francisco, CA 94133 Attention: Jim Adams 18. TERMINATION: In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Consultant from ARRA, of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, ARRA may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. ARRA shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon teiiuination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 19. COMPLIANCES: Consultant shall comply with all applicable state or federal laws and all applicable ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by ARRA. 20. CONFLICT OF LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Alameda, State of California. Alameda Point Master Planning Consultant Agreement 7 21. ADVERTISEMENT: Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from ARRA to do otherwise. 22. WAIVER: A waiver by ARRA of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 23. INTEGRATED CONTRACT: This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both ARRA and Consultant. 24. INSERTED PROVISIONS: Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party. 25. CAPTIONS: The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. Alameda Point Master Planning Consultant Agreement 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT ROMA Design Group 4 I itif4tit A Adams Title: Principal ALAMEDA REUSE & REDEVELOPMENT : THORITY By: James M. Flint Title: Executive Director RECOMMENDED APPROVAL: By' Greg Fuz, Title: Planning and Building Director By: S phen A. Proud Title: A ameda Point Project Manager APPR! VED AS TO FORM: By: David Brandt Title: Assistant City Attorney Alameda Point Master Planning Consultant Agreement 9 Attachment A ALAMEDA POINT PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT MASTER PLANNING CONSULTING FIRM SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work is divided into three sections: one the prime master planning consultant (ROMA Design Group) and two for subconsultants (Carlson, Barbee & Gibson; Fehr & Peers). The budget for each task within the Scope of Work is set out in Attachment B. The Client's project manager may reallocated funds between tasks and authorize the use of contingencies by issuing a letter of instructions to the prime Consultant. ROMA DESIGN GROUP Task R-1 — Sensitivity Testing (Months 1 through 2): During the first two months, ROMA will work with the Project Team to develop and evaluate alternative development scenarios designed to meet community objectives as articulated in the Reuse Plan, General Plan and Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA), facilitate conveyance, and resolve outstanding City/Navy issues. ROMA will support the City team in their negotiations with the Navy, and in efforts to reach a common understanding of project parameters and economics. The sensitivity testing task will involve the following steps: • Working with the City team and project stakeholders to brainstorm strategies for meeting community objectives and facilitating conveyance of the property. • Develop up to three alternative scenarios that clearly illustrate trade -offs, and calculate programmatic yields. Provide conceptual "work- outs" as required to ensure that concepts are achievable within realistic market and development parameters. Consult with APCP and members of the Project Team regarding product types and marketability. Provide images of similar development or building types. Review with the team and refine as necessary. • Coordinate with the historic architect and structural engineers as required to evaluate the feasibility and practicability of adaptive reuse options in each of the scenarios. Prepare conceptual work -outs as required for up to three adaptive re- use buildings, and coordinate with structural engineers on construction cost parameters. • Coordinate with civil engineering, transportation and environmental consultants in identifying order -of- magnitude increases or decreases in project infrastructure and clean -up costs and potential costs related to off -site impacts for each of the scenarios. • Coordinate with economic consultants and the Project Team in assessing increase or decrease in costs of public services, affordable housing subsidies for each of the scenarios, and provide necessary support in preparing land value analysis. Review findings with Project Team and identify refinements to the plans and materials that may be required for productive meetings with either the Navy or the community. Deliverables: Internal Working Papers, describing development scenarios in graphic, text and tabular form (PDF and 25 copies). Presentation materials including poster -sized graphics and tables, and other supporting materials for Navy or community meetings. Task R -2 — Issues and Options (Months 3 and 4): By the end of the second month, it is anticipated that the Land Use and Conveyance Teams will have identified the critical negotiating issues related to the conveyance of the base, and the range of alternative strategies that could be considered to resolve those issues. The goal of the Issues and Options task will be to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the community to identify and discuss critical trade -offs and alternative concepts that should be explored in more depth. Specific tasks during this stage of the process will include: • Coordinate with the Project Team and the technical consultants to prepare an Opportunities and Constraints PowerPoint presentation and summary background report to clearly describe: the history and status of the Alameda Point project; the goals of the Reuse Plan and General Plan; the physical and regulatory opportunities and constraints to reuse and redevelopment; and the outstanding issues between the City and the Navy related to conveyance of the property. Present to Project Team and make refinements as required. • Post the Opportunities and Constraints report on the project web site. • Conduct a daylong community -wide workshop. In the morning provide a summary presentation on each of the key issue areas (e.g., transportation, historic preservation, housing requirements and constraints, commercial types and locations, adaptive reuse alternatives, urban design concepts, public open space options, hazardous materials clean -up, implementation and financing). In the afternoon, break out into small work groups to brainstorm alternative approaches aimed at resolving and balancing critical trade -off issues. Following the table discussions, reconvene the group to review results and to discuss the range of alternatives that should be developed and the criteria that should be employed in their evaluation. • Present the Opportunities and Constraints and the findings of the community workshop to the ARRA, Planning Board, and APAC in separate work sessions to gather further input from elected and appointed community representatives on key policy tradeoffs. 2 • Review the input from the ARRA, Planning Board, APAC and the community with the Project Team, and evaluate their implications on the range of scenarios developed during the sensitivity- testing task. Update and refine earlier scenarios, incorporating community input, and adjust the projected land value analysis accordingly. • Prepare materials for a Navy /City work sessions and/or staff presentations to other boards and commissions as required. Deliverables: Opportunities and Constraints PowerPoint show and background report (PDF and 25 copies). Community workshop materials including PowerPoint show, poster graphics, etc. Supporting presentation materials for Navy /City work sessions. Task R -3 — Alternative Concepts (Months 5 and 6): By the end of the fourth month, it is assumed that clear alternative strategies will have emerged for the base. The goal of the Alternative Concepts task will be to illustrate and evaluate these alternatives for purposes of community review and refinement and further policy direction from the ARRA. Specific tasks will include: • Meet with the Project Team to frame the alternatives to be developed and illustrated. It is anticipated that clearly delineated plans will be defined to fully illustrate the implications of critical outstanding issues. • Prepare up to three alternatives that bracket the range of financially feasible land use scenarios for the redevelopment of the site. Package the alternatives in a way that clearly illustrates outstanding policy and implementation issues. To the extent feasible and appropriate, the alternatives will be designed to also serve as future alternatives for project entitlement environmental review, which is not part of this contract. Prepare materials that convey the physical /visual characteristics of each of the alternatives, including: plans, sections, diagrams, perspective sketches, and/or image precedents. • Coordinate with the Project Team and the technical consultants in performing a rigorous evaluation of the alternatives. Establish criteria which could include: a. Financial /fiscal feasibility, or the ability of the alternative to create sufficient land value to cover the anticipated costs of Navy conveyance, on and off -site infrastructure, affordable housing subsidies, and City public services. b. Implementation feasibility, or the ability to phase and implement on and off - site improvements within the existing regulatory framework. c. Achievement of community goals as articulated in the Reuse Plan, General Plan and CAA. . d. Transportation levels of service. e. Conformance with regional policies and regulations. 3 • Prepare an alternatives report, including graphics, summary text and tables describing each of the project alternatives, and their evaluation. Review with Project Team and make refinements as necessary. • Post alternatives report on the project web site. • Conduct a half -day community -wide workshop to review the alternatives and to receive input on their evaluation and the selection of a preferred approach. • Present the Alternatives report and outcomes of the community workshop to the ARRA, Planning Board and APAC in separate work sessions. • Review the input from the ARRA, Planning Board, APAC and the community with the Project Team, and establish a recommended plan for presentation to the Navy. • Prepare materials for Navy /City work sessions and/or staff presentations to other boards and commissions. Deliverables: Alternatives Background Report for public distribution and web -site (PDF and 25 copies); alternatives power -point presentation; community workshop and presentation materials. Supporting presentation materials. Task R-4 — Consultant's Recommended Development Concept(s) (Months 7 and 8): On the basis of input from the Project Team, policy makers, stakeholders, and the community at large, ROMA will coordinate with the team to prepare a "preliminary recommended development concept ", which will illustrate the Project Team's recommended approach to the resolution of the outstanding issues. The preliminary recommended concept may include some policy options for certain geographic areas of the base to be resolved during the entitlement process, but those options will be identified and described. These options may be carried forward and presented as sub - alternatives within a common framework plan. Specific tasks will include: • Work with the Project Team to define the recommended development concept, and the sub - options. • Coordinate with the technical consultant team to prepare a background report and PowerPoint presentation, summarizing the key characteristics of the recommended plan including: land use location, mix and intensity; community design characteristics, open space and community facilities; shoreline treatments and design, on and off -site transportation facilities; and implementation and financing strategy. Describe sub - options, and provide a summary evaluation (see criteria above) of the recommended plan and the sub - options. • Post a summary of the recommended development concept report on the project web site. 4 • Conduct a half -day community -wide workshop to review the preliminary recommended concept report. • Present the recommended development concept(s) and the outcomes from the community workshop to the APAC, the Planning Board and the ARRA for their input and comment. • Prepare materials for Navy /City work sessions and/or staff presentations to other boards and commissions,. Deliverables: Recommended Development Concept report (PDF and 25 copies). Presentation materials for APAC /Planning Board/ARRA workshops. Supporting materials. Task R -5 — Preferred Development Concept (Months 9 and 10): ROMA will work with the Project Team to define a Preferred Development Concept that balances Navy conveyance terms with community objectives and City policy direction. It is anticipated that this concept will be a refinement of the recommended alternative, presented to the community and to the Navy in the previous task. The preferred development concept will continue to carry forward certain land use sub - options (i.e., specific housing types, layouts or densities for specific subareas) that will be resolved prior to or during the entitlement process. More specifically: • Meet with the Project Team to outline the approach to the Preferred Development Concept. • Prepare a package of presentation materials, including graphics (i.e., plans, sections, diagrams, perspective sketches, image precedents) and summary text and tables that describe the Preferred Development Concept, including: Land Use Concept and Development Program, Community Design Concept (with an outline of development standards and design guidelines), Open Space and Community Facilities Concept, Circulation Concept, Implementation Concept (e.g., financing, phasing). Review with the Project Team and make refinements as necessary. • Post Preferred Development Concept on the project web site. • Conduct a half -day community -wide workshop to receive input on the preferred development concept and to discuss the implication of outstanding sub - options. • Present the Preferred Development Concept and the outcomes from the community workshop to the APAC, the Planning Board and the ARRA for their input and comment. 5 • Meet with the Project Team to review public and policymaker comments and to identify content and materials for Navy /City workshop. • Prepare supporting materials for Navy /City workshop, and participate as required. Deliverables: Preferred Development Concept report (PDF and 25 copies) and PowerPoint presentation. Workshop materials for APAC and community -wide workshops. Supporting presentation materials. Task R -6 — Draft Development Concept Plan (Months 11 and 12): ROMA will work with the Project Team and the technical consultants to document the Draft Development Concept Plan, which will be prepared in a Specific Plan format, to enable it to serve as the basis for future entitlements for the project. An administrative draft of the document will be prepared for Project Team review and comment prior to a final draft for public distribution. • Meet with the Project Team to finalize the program and outline the policies of the Draft Development Concept Plan. • Coordinate with the technical consultant team in documenting the Development Concept Plan, the organization of which could be as follows: a. Background and Purpose b. Goals and Objectives c. Land Use Plan d. Community Design Standards and Guidelines e. Open Space and Community Facilities Plan f. Circulation Plan g. Utilities and Public Services Plan h. Implementation Plan i. Conformance with General Plan • Submit an administrative draft to be reviewed by the Project Team and the City of Alameda. • Prepare a final draft for public distribution. • Prepare a summary to be posted on the project web site. • Conduct one community workshop with the APAC to present and receive community feedback on the final draft. • Conduct work sessions with the Planning Board and the ARRA to present the final draft. 6 Deliverables: Administrative Draft and Final Draft Development Concept (PDF and 25 copies of each). Development Concept Summary (PDF and 25 copies). Workshop presentation materials. Task R -7 — Contingency: The fee contains contingency funds to be used at the client's discretion for additional meetings or staff time as needed to respond to requests for information. The contingency does not assume significant changes or additions to the scope outlined above. Any requests for additional analysis will be reviewed with the Client to ensure that the requests can be absorbed into the contingency identified. 7 CARLSON, BARBEE & GIBSON Task C -1 — Project Orientation / Coordination A. Provide project orientation and continuous assistance to the Master Planning Consultant and the City which includes Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc's (CBG) current knowledge of the project area, its constraints and opportunities. Task C -2 — Base Map A. Create a base map which defines the project's boundary based on; the boundary survey prepared by RBF, the existing aerial topography prepared by the Navy, additional supplemental topographical field shots at the project's perimeter, an agreement with the City on the Main Street right of way and it's location, an agreement with the City with regards to the Wildlife boundary, and the existing EDC boundaries. Task C -3 — Constraints Map A. In conjunction with other consultants, prepare a constraints map that outlines such items as; I.R. sites, pre and post tidelands trust areas, historical areas, collaborative housing, EDC boundaries, lease agreements, geotechnical and soils constraints, wetlands issues, buildings to be saved, flood plain and other existing constraints. Task C -4 — Master Grading Plan A. Prepare a Master Grading Plan for the Master Plan Area. Scope to include preparing proposed grades and slopes for infrastructure streets. The grades for the development areas will show super pads to establish grading quantities and master drainage concepts. Prepare earthwork calculations based on the super pad areas and recommendation of the Geotechnical engineers and the remediation consultants. Task C -5 — Master Storm Drainage Plan / Update A. Provide direction and guidance to the Master Planning Consultant and the City regarding storm drainage issues and constraints. B. After the Main Plan has been defined and approved by the City, update CBG's existing draft Master Storm Drainage Plan to be consistent with the proposed Master Plan concept. The Master Storm Drainage Plan will consider phasing. Task C -6 — Master Sanitary Sewer Plan / Update A. Provide direction and guidance to the Master Planning Consultant and the City regarding sanitary sewer issues and constraints. 8 B. After the Main Plan has been defined and approved by the City, update CBG's existing draft Master Sanitary Sewer Plan to be consistent with the proposed Master Plan concept. The Master Sanitary Sewer Plan will consider phasing. Task C -7 — Master Water System Plan A. Coordinate with EBMUD regarding their preparation of the Master Water System analysis. EBMUD to size the infrastructure water system. Assist EBMUD in the location of the infrastructure lines and the phasing of the project. Task C -8 — Cost Estimate A. Prepare detailed cost estimate of the infrastructure based on the Master Plan prepared and the phasing of the project. Prepare development fee estimates for the infrastructure items of work. Prepare a "typical" in -tract cost estimate. Prepare a "typical" in -tract development fee estimate. Estimate will be used by KMA for their financial assessment and pro forma of the project. Task C -9 — Meetings and Coordination A. Meet with and coordinate with City of Alameda, the Master Planning Consultant, EBMUD, Alameda Power and Telecom, AT &T, Pacific Bell, PG &E, Precision Planning, F.A.T.C.O., City of Oakland, Traffic Consultants, Geotechnical Engineers, Remediation Consultants and others as requested by Client. Task C -10 — Exhibits / Miscellaneous Tasks A. Prepare exhibits and miscellaneous tasks as requested by client. Task C -11 — CADD Coordination / Base Sheets A. Coordinate all CADD drawings with all consultants such that all drawings are on the same basis. Other Direct Costs (Reimbursables) A. Printing and Computer Plots B. Delivery Services and UPS. C. Other tasks requested by Client or Agencies. D. Computer Disks / Files for Others. Exclusions A. Tentative Mapping and entitlement processing. B. Planning / Calculating individual lots within proposed neighborhood. 9 C. Multiple revisions to the Grading Master Plan, Drainage Master Plan and Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. D. E.I.R. documents. E. Construction design / staking. F. Equipment for potholing of existing facilities. G. Copying of reports / studies of the Master Plan other than the reports prepared by CBG. 10 FEHR & PEERS The following scope is a continuation of work completed by Fehr & Peers for Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) during the summer of 2003. The scope necessarily draws upon the earlier analysis but does not contain redundancy with the previous scope as it is anticipated that the land use plans formulated as part of the City's efforts will differ from those of APCP. New work tasks are: 1. Assist ROMA and City staff in refining the Alameda Point project description and site plan to maximize trip reduction benefits resulting from integrating Smart Growth concepts 2. Prepare a revised and updated Alameda Point Transportation Strategy Report (APTSR). The APTSR will: a. Refine earlier trip generation and travel demand forecasting analyses to give an assessment of the transportation impacts of a maximum of three land use alternatives, focusing mainly on impacts to the Posey /Webster Tubes and three bridges b. Include an assessment of the impact of the preferred land use alternative on ten key intersections chosen from the larger group of intersections previously analyzed, the Tubes, and Park, High, and Fruitvale bridges; including one iteration of the plan and analysis. 3. Providing technical support to ROMA and /or City staff at internal and or public meetings, which may include the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee to discuss the transportation impacts of land use planning decisions. Task F-1 — Site Planning Fehr & Peers will work with City staff, ROMA, and APCP to refine the project description and site plan to maximize the potential trip reduction benefits of integrating Smart Growth concepts into the project. It is our expectation that the strategies that will be most effective will include: • Co- locating retail and office in mixed -use district(s) (consideration of housing in the mixed use zones would also be effective) adjacent to the Ferry Terminal. • Reducing the size of parking fields supporting non - residential uses (this may also offer improved opportunities for more attractive mixed -use districts). • Incorporating neighborhood commercial in residential areas with the goal that each household is within one - quarter mile of a neighborhood commercial outlet. 11 • Incorporating transportation centers into the project (these could be combined with the neighborhood commercial outlets) such that car share (including neighborhood electric vehicles), bike parking /rental /repair, shower facilities and lockers are available within one - quarter mile of nearly all development on Alameda Point. Task F -1 Product A: A revised introductory chapter for the APTSR describing the preferred alternative and those aspects of the preferred alternative that support transit use and any additional site planning or programming issues that should be considered in the context of future entitlements to further increase transit use and/or trip reductions. Task F -1 Product B: A revised and updated Alameda Point Draft TDM Plan chapter for the APTSR that may be needed to reflect the outcome of public meetings, financial feasibility analyses, or other planning activities that may cause the need for changes to the scope and content of the TDM program. The TDM chapter will include an updated assessment of the preferred alternative and TDM program ability to fund and /or implement TSM /TDM measures designed to achieve a target reduction, below standard ITE trip generation rates, for each applicable land use of 30% in non - residential peak period vehicle traffic and 10% in residential peak. The Chapter will also contain a phasing program, developed once the Land Use Plan has been finalized. The TDM program will include a recommendation for an annual monitoring program including a commute mode survey for both residents and employers at Alameda Point and an origin - destination survey or other means of counting peak period vehicle trips utilizing the Webster and Posey Tubes originating at Alameda Point. (Surveys shall be conducted during a period of normal traffic generation; i.e., surveys periods will not include vacation, weekend, or holiday periods.) The TDM program will include a list of additional, feasible TSM /TDM measures for future phases that might be implemented as part of the first phase if Alameda determines through the monitoring program, that TSM /TDM targets, including proportionate reductions in peak period vehicle trips utilizing the Webster and Posey Tubes, are not achieved in the first phase. The TDM program will address the relationship between the proposed TDM program and any feasible new transit estuary crossings identified through the City's Estuary Crossing Study to the extent that that information is available. The Estuary Crossing Study is not part of this scope of work. Task F -2A — Land Use Alternatives Analysis Fehr & Peers will analyze the impact of three alternatives to the three bridges (Park, High, and Fruitvale), tubes, and ten key intersections. This scope anticipates that the ten intersections chosen will be a sub -set of the forty intersections previously identified by City staff and analyzed as part of the work contained in the Transportation Strategy 12 Report. If City staff elects to analyze intersections outside this subset, the scope and budget will be adjusted accordingly. This analysis is a three -step process: 1. Extract the future background traffic (excluding the project) from the model for the bridges, which were not included in the previous analysis. 2. Apply trip generation rates for the various land use scenarios, assuming internalization and some impact from TDM /TSM programs, and distribute trips based on the trip assignment from the model. 3. As the Webster /Posey tubes become more congested, trips will be diverted to other Estuary crossings (the Fruitvale, Park, and High Street bridges). We will assume a uniform level of congestion and apply a percentage increase to those alternative crossings based on the percentage increase by the trips from Alameda Point. Because the earlier TRAFFIX model did not include the three bridges, the model will be expanded as part of this task. This process is designed to avoid executing multiple model runs in order to achieve cost effectiveness, and it is technically sound and sufficient for choosing the preferred land use alternative. However, it does not allow for a complex and finessed understanding of the impact of development on island -wide trips. As trips from Alameda Point begin to impact the tubes, it is difficult (under the proposed analysis) to get a micro -level understanding of which travelers choose to utilize other crossing locations. Therefore, we will not be able to answer questions about specific neighborhood impacts of the land use alternatives (i.e., where exactly are the trips coming from that will be cutting across town to the bridge and will they be using my street as a cut - through ?). If the City desires, we can execute multiple model runs to get a more complete grasp of the impact to trip patterns. Fehr & Peers will present the results of the analysis, which will inform the selection of a preferred land use alternative. Product F -2A: A revision to the Travel Demand Forecasting chapter for the APTSR including description of the three alternatives analyzed, the revised analysis and assumptions, and results for current and future traffic at ten key intersection locations, the Webster /Posey tubes, and other estuary crossings, under three land use alternatives. Task F -2B — Preferred Land Use Analysis Using the refined project description formulated in Task IIA, Fehr & Peers will estimate project trip generation, using the TRAFFIX model previously developed as part of the Transportation Strategy Report, for 2010 and full buildout (2020 or 2025). The TRAFFIX network includes major intersections approaching Alameda Point so that, where necessary, project impact mitigations may be identified. Intersection level of service analysis will be conducted in accordance with the City's guidelines for the same ten intersections included in TASK 2A. 13 If needed, we have budgeted for one iteration of this analysis, as the preferred alternative is refined. Product F -2B: A revision to the Travel Demand Forecasting chapter for the APTSR including description of the preferred alternative, the revised analysis and assumptions, and results for current and future traffic at ten key intersection locations, the Webster /Posey tubes, and other estuary crossings, under three land use alternatives. The revised Travel Demand Forecasting chapter will include a revised Conclusions and Recommendations section that will include or reference a technical memorandum prepared by Fehr and Peers within this task which will identify available methodologies to be used by Alameda and Oakland for determining each jurisdiction's and project proponent's fair share contributions toward mitigation measures for project impacts in Alameda and Oakland. The memorandum will identify and consider any methodologies used by Caltrans, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, or any other State or regional agency with appropriate jurisdiction, to calculate the appropriate project contributions for mitigation measures. The memorandum will consider and address the questions of: 1) whether new and anticipated development should fund the total cost of the mitigation measure /improvement or only a share of the cost, 2) whether the mitigation measure /improvement improves service or the condition over existing conditions or simply maintains existing conditions and 3) whether the impact is being caused primarily by Oakland and Alameda projects or a whether a significant portion of the impact is being generated by projects outside the jurisdiction of either Alameda or Oakland. Task F -3 — Meetings Fehr and Peers will provide technical support to ROMA and the City of Alameda at up to six public meetings and one meeting per month with the project team throughout the course of the scope as needed (assumes the project runs from April 2004 to June 2005). The scope assumes that: • Matthew Ridgway and Seleta Reynolds will attend three public meetings. • Seleta Reynolds will attendl2 team meetings. • Matthew Ridgway will attend six team meetings. Product F -3. Monthly report to be submitted with the monthly invoice documenting hours spent in meetings as part of this scope of work. Task F -4 — Contingency The fee contains contingency funds to be used at the client's discretion for additional meetings or staff time as needed to respond to requests for information. The contingency does not assume significant changes or additions to the scope outlined above. Any 14 requests for additional analysis will be reviewed with ROMA and City staff to ensure that the requests can be absorbed into the contingency identified. 15 ALAMEDA POINT PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT WORK TIMELINE: ROMA DESIGN GROUP tit til R -1. SensitivitiyTesting R -2. Issues and Options R -3. Alternative Concept(s) R -4. Consultant's Recommended Development Concept(s) R -5. Preferred Development Concept R -6. Draft Development Concept Plan v1 z w w City /Navy Work Sessions (5) Community Workshops (5 including 1 joint) APAC (5 including 1 joint) Planning Board (5) City Council (5) Project Core Team (12) Project Team Bi- Weekly Meetings (23) MAY 24, 2004 ca ct ROMA Budget- Attachement B.xls N O N 0 O 0 ai 28 N in \ N. \0 20 17 O M Cf 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 CA O O trl C\ 01 0 0 O * V0 N vi IF 00 VI S 64 69 0 00 ON ∎0D C4 0 0 ,..O Arch. /] Urb Desi 69 $ 6 O 'Cr CO 0 N in 0 O 00 O 0 mdse 'rinc S. Fi; )Z$ 69 69 00 00 00 CO O 0 N (r:, 0 tn .sigi icip gran O N _ b9 69 69 0 0 0 0 N 00 00 00 0 60\ 0 00 d' )C IV R. ,O N 69 69 EA O 0 0 00 N 01 PIC /PI Man J. Ac Z$ I 69 $ 9 ROMA Design Group Description Sensitivity Testing Ilssues and Options Alternative Concepts 1Consultant's Recommended Development Concept Preferred Development Concept Draft Development Concept Plan Subtotal Hours !TOTAL STAFF COST Contingency Other Direct Costs (printing, reproduction, presentation materials, TOTAL .y i- r� N M d' vl [- ROMA Budget- Attachement B.xls Attachment B: Total $ 7,000 o 0 0 o — b9 o 0 0 ..:F 69 0 0 0 ■o 69 0 0 0 N * 69 0 0 0 o _. 69 0 0 0 r V) 0 0 0 o N 69 0 0 0 0 ^-* 69 0 0 0 vl 69 0 0 0 .1- 69 0 0 0 N Q\ 65 $ 8,0001 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Description Proiect Orientation / Coordination c°s Constraints Man o - C 0 1- C7 IMaster Storm Drainage Ian Master Sanitary Sewer Plan Master Water System Plan d.) al E U C o C o U o -o "' a Exhibits / Miscellaneous Tasks v GO 4) ti cJ CO C o cs ❑ 'O 0 o u U TOTAL STAFF COST !Other Direct Costs (printing, reproduction, presentation materials, etc.) +10% TOTAL - H -- C N U M U V' U N U V U t--- 6 00 U Cr. U 0 3 U ROMA Budget- Attachement B.xls y Ho0 d0 - M o 00 o0 00 ° o0 00 C■ 00 0 0 M N 00 ° M t s• Description tr GN d' bs o 00 ,P1 6 o � l� 6s C\ C\ C� 6• Graphics V , cps 00 20 N 0 o 20 0 n 0\ ci 00 1Chris Mitchell 0 00 00 0 60 40 0 0 0 00 00 00 I Bruce Friedman 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 1451 40 $ 4,000 Seleta Reynolds 00 40 20, 20 0 145 00 Jeff Tumlin 051$ 0 0 00 0 0 0c o N o N 00 Sompol Chatusripitak 0 00 00 0 20 0 0 0 009`£ $ OZ Other Direct Costs (printing, reproduction, presentation materials, etc.) Matthew Ridgway kr) 00 00 ,O v, 00 0 N 0 M C, [� d" Fehr & Peers Description Site Planning Revised TDM Chapter Land Use Alternatives Analysis Preferred Land Use Analysis Meetings Subtotal Hours TOTAL STAFF COST Contingency TOTAL ti ca E Q — : CO IL d CO N N (.L (.la M 1 tz, o E* 0 0 CD' d. 00 0 0 0 -- 00 CS, v, 000 00 Cr,, *r 000 v, 00 c3 00 Description ROMA Design Group Carlson, Barbee & Gibson Fehr & Peers TOTAL ROMA Budget- Attachement B.xls AGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * *** Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 391 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Meeting will begin at 7:29 p.m. City Hall will open at 7:14 p.m. 2. Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items. Anyone wishing to address the Board on non - agenda items may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 3 -A. Recommendation to approve Continuing Resolution authorizing payment of Alameda Point obligations at existing levels until adoption of the FY 2004 -2005 Operating Budget. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 5. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 7, 2004. Notes: Please contact ARRA Secretary, Irma Frankel at 749 -5800 or 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Irma Frankel, ARRA Secretary, or Development Services at 749 -5800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. • Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum June 4, 2004 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: James M. Flint, Executive Director Re: Recommendation to Approve Continuing Resolution Authorizing Payment of Alameda Point Obligations at Existing Levels until Adoption of the FY 2004 -2005 Operating Budget Background In June 2003, the ARRA Governing Body approved an operating budget for Alameda Point to cover expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004. Operating revenues include lease proceed grants. It is estimated that the ARRA will carryover approximately $2,323,406 in lease proceeds in the next fiscal year. Estimated Revenue for fiscal year 2004 -2005 is $12,472,374 and proposed appropriations are $10,867,984. Discussion The Alameda Point ludget will be considered at the same time the City Council reviews the City's two -year financial plan. Budget workshops are scheduled through June 8, 2004 with deliberations beginning June 10 and possibly extending through July 2004. Therefore, in order for operations to continue at Alameda Point, it is necessary for the ARRA Governing Body to authorize expenditures at the current level until the 2004 -2005 fiscal year appropriations are established. Fiscal Impact Revenue sources identified in the current fiscal year are adequate to fund interim expenditures at Alameda Point for infrastructure maintenance, and administrative costs at present service levels until the budget is passed. In addition, an unexpended federal EDA grant and local matching funds will be available for reappropriation in this interim budget. The interim proposed budget for Alameda Point has no impact on the City's general fund. Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the proposed continuing resolution be adopted allowing interim expenditures from July 1, 2004 until the ARRA budget is adopted, in order to pay Alameda Point obligations. LAL/NB /LA eshe A. Little Development Services Director By: Nanette Banks • Finance and Administration Division Manager Attachment: Resolution No. 34 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service (''I XX'I 1- I∎cdd tt,C.1 (X :11 S' hlus nuiu:•Bn.l(rt Rrltoi )615').1,h, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 34 AUTHORIZING INTERIM EXPENDITURES OF ALAMEDA POINT OBLIGATIONS IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2004 -2005 FY WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment (ARRA) approved a budget for Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 Alameda Point operations in June 2003; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that lease revenue for Fiscal year 2004 -2005 is $12,472,374 with approximately $2,323,406 lease revenue carryover. In addition, there are unexpended grant and local matching EDA grant monies to be carried over to FY 2004 -05. Proposed appropriations for Alameda point operations are $10,867,984; and WHEREAS, Alameda point appropriations include infrastructure, maintenance and administration costs; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to authorize payment of Alameda Point obligations until the ARRA budget is adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the ARRA hereby approves interim expenditures prior to the approval of the ARRA Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -05 at the levels set by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Budget for FY 2003 -04 in order to pay Alameda point obligations until the City /ARRA budget is adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARRA hereby appropriates and approves expenditure of the remaining unexpended grant and local matching funds for the EDA grant award. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 2004 -2005 presented to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority no later than the July 2004 ARRA meeting. * j; : j; :, , : +; I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in its regular meeting assembled on the 1S t h day of j u n e, 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: 5 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 a Ffankel, Secretary Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority Date: July , 2004