Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2005-07-14 ARRA Packet
AGENDA Special 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 REVISED Thursday, July 14, 2005 Meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. City Hall will open at 5:45 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items Only Anyone wishing to address the Board on non - agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER: 3 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, U.S. Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. 4. PROCLAMATION 4 -A. Proclamation to members of the APAC for their dedication and unwavering commitment to the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the ARRA or a member of the public. 5 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of March 2, 2005. 5 -B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 6, 2005. 5 -C. Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources extending the term for 90 -days and adding $54,000 to the budget for environmental consulting services. ARRA Agenda - July 14, 2005 Page 2 5 -D. Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the approval of Subleases at Alameda Point. 5 -E. Recommendation to amend the approved FY 2005 -2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000 for repairs to the Al Dewitt O'Club. 6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 6 -A. Presentation of the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point establishing land use goals, transportation strategy and historic preservation strategy. 7. ORAL REPORT 7 -A. Oral report from APAC. 7 -B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. 8. 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.) 9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 10. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 3, 2005. 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. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, March 2, 2005 The meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Absent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 5, 2005. 2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 20, 2005. Member Matarrese 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. PRESENTATION 3 -A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning Stephen Proud gave a monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance process. He stated that on February 16th, a proposal was made to the Navy for the acquisition of Alameda Point. Discussions with the Navy included a presentation about conveyance strategy and approach for moving Alameda Point forward. The proposal to the Navy was very well received and they expressed appreciation for the proposal. A series of follow -up meetings have been scheduled to discuss environmental and economic issues, and parcel identification suitable for transfer and phasing. Next land planning workshop is scheduled for March 3rd. This workshop has been broken up into two pieces: the March 3rd meeting is co- hosted by the planning board and APAC and will focus on land use alternatives that have been developed over the first series of public workshops. The second part of this workshop will be a separate meeting on the March 23rd with the Transportation Commission, which will focus on transportation alternatives. The goal is to come back to the ARRA in April with a full briefing on the 2 workshops. A good solid attendance is expected as was experienced in the past. Andrew Thomas from the planning department continued to discuss benefits of having the workshops broken into two separate meetings. He stated the community expressed a desire to receive information in smaller quantities rather than two much, too fast. Mr. Thomas discussed estuary crossing and long term planning, not only for Alameda Point but for the entire City of Alameda and that we will be presenting to the public the various transportation possibilities: light rail connections to the Fruitvale BART along the regional outline alignment to the aerial tram from the west end to the west Oakland BART and a number of different options. Chair Johnson mentioned the interagency liaison committee with AC Transit and talked about transportation solutions. She would like to look at a system that uses the same tracks that are currently in place in Alameda. She stated that this would dramatically cut down the costs of that kind of transportation solution. Andrew Thomas agreed and explained the difference between heavy gauge and light gauge rail. The new street car systems are typically on light gauge, yet the old belt line was a heavy gauge system. The issues with the solution of using the existing rails are on the Oakland side and the ability to cross the Union Pacific lines at grade. The PUC rarely grants those kinds of approvals. Chair Johnson pointed out that no matter what gauge rail system was used, that issue would have to be dealt with. She believed the rail system alternative that should be looked at should be focused on using the existing infrastructure in place and we should not spend a lot of money and time looking at rail systems that don't fit our current infrastructure. Chair Johnson asked if there were any costs estimates using the current rail and gauge. Andrew Thomas stated that not all costs estimates were available but did have good costs estimates for what it would take to put in a new system. Chair Johnson would like a cost estimate using existing rails and Andrew Thomas explained the issues relating to costs savings for existing rail system and creating cars that are designed for light gauge rail. Chair Johnson mentioned that the San Francisco Muni system is using old cars and they work very well. She also suggested that a transportation solution be in place even before base development starts, and would like to find a solution for transportation throughout Alameda over to Fruitvale BART. Andrew Thomas agreed. He stated that they were meeting with the City of Oakland and the Port of Oakland to get an idea on how these agencies feel about this, as well as with AC Transit and BART. He mentioned that if an at -grade crossing of the Union Pacific Lines was obtainable, then that option would look very good. If not, then we'd be looking at building an elevated system or diving under. Member Matarrese suggested comparing what Caltrans has done between San Francisco and San Jose. Chair Johnson suggested some sort of shuttle system get started now. 2 Member Matarrese mentioned two items that were brought up at the AC Transit meeting. One was electric buses which would make our fuel be AP &T instead of some oil company, similar to golf carts. Chair Johnson stated that the information given at the workshops should include the fact that some solutions are never going to happen because they are so expensive, or at least not in the foreseeable future. There are some solutions that are feasible long term, but we're looking at short term feasible solutions that can get started even before base development starts. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 4 -A. Recommendation to approve a 10 -year lease agreement with Nelson's Marine for Building 167. Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager introduced David Jaber, regional vice - president of PM Realty Group. Mr. Jaber presented a short analysis regarding the Nelson's Marine issue. Mr. Jaber recommends the lease and supports the market rent for Nelson's Marine. He also analyzed the $34M difference that was presented by the boat yard attorney at the last ARRA board meeting. Mr. Jaber gave a brief background and discussed how the fair market value of the Nelson's Marine rent was determined: Nelson's Marine was one of the first groups out to Alameda Point, with a 5 year lease which contained a clause that allowed for renewal at 90% of fair market value. This survey was performed by Dunn Associates and that helped determine the fair market value. The fair market value component provided by Dunn & Associates was on the base rent. When the rent survey was done, the focus was on four things: 1) review of the lease and the leases, 2) site coverage ratio, 3) the gross rent and net rent conversion, 4) the review of the rent per square foot. Mr. Jaber gave a review of the leases, comparing the costs between two boat yard leases for taxes, insurance, and maintenance. He analyzed the numbers -- using a 20 yr. term to help explain the differential -- which showed that the $34M loss, proposed by the opposing four boatyards, was not supported. His analysis further justified that the net lease proposed comes out with the appropriate rate. Mr. Jaber concluded that the fair market value -- the 31.5 % based upon the 90% of fair market value -- is appropriate for the lease. He included percentage rent, the ability to prosper as the tenant prospers, sublease recapture, which doesn't allow the tenant to profit by bringing in subtenants, rental increases, 2% every year, justified considering there is the ability to reduce the land space by 75,000 sq feet, and lastly a 10 yr term is very appropriate. Mr. Jaber recommended the Nelson lease for approval. Mayor Johnson called a few speakers. Richard Lyons of Wendell, Rosen, Black and Dean spoke on behalf of Nelson's Marine and addressed the legal aspects of the lease, explaining Mr. Nelson's rights to extend the lease, right of first negotiation and the price for that right, and the contractual obligation on the part of the City and Mr. Nelson to abide by determination of the appraiser regarding the lease term. He requested that the two leases be approved. 3 Carl Nelson, president of Nelson's Marine thanked Mr. Jaber and Mr. Lyons and looks forward to having his business here for at least another 10 years. Peter Lindh, representing the four boat yards came up to discuss the validity of the $34 million shortfall that his clients projected if the Nelson's Marine lease is approved. He stated that the $34M was based on the principles involved and that the actual lease terms themselves make the shortfall about $36M. Mr. Lindh explained that there were two specific flaws to the PM Realty (Mr. Jaber's ) argument. The first was that the two boatyards used in Mr. Jaber's analysis are not comparable (triple net versus gross analysis); it's not fair market value. The second flaw is the .45 cents that Nelson's is paying per square foot per month on maintenance. He stated the amount as inaccurate and reiterated that the Nelson rate is not fair market value. He discussed the cost of having a fixed rate - is $190,000 to the City of Alameda and stated that the only adjustment that PM has suggested in their counter proposal is reducing the lease term from 20 yr to 10 yrs. Mr. Lindh concluded and urged the Board, as a fiscal responsibility, to require PM Realty to reevaluate and come up with a proposal that is more consistent with economic reality and fair market value. Chair,Johnson asked if the City is going to lose money on this lease. Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Division Manager, Development Services, explained that the Nelson's lease renewal was brought to the ARRA governing body for approval and the four boat yard attorney raised questions about a $34M loss if we went forward with this lease. The ARRA Board directed PM Realty and Development Services to research this issue. Ms. Banks further explained that there hasn't been a counter offer, nor would there be, because according to the Nelson's lease, they have the first right to negotiate at 90% fair market value and the appraisal was to establish the fair market value. Chair Johnson and Boardmembers discussed the issue of the Nelson's lease creating some unfair advantage to other boat yards, and the original concern of the $34M loss. There were no counter proposals to the Nelson's lease. The Board approved the staff recommendation. Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes -0; Abstentions -0 4 -B. Recommendation to approve a 5 -year lease, with a possible (5 -year) options with Nelson's Marine for 400 linear feet of Pier 1. No speaker slips. Recommendation approved and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes -0; Abstentions -0. 4 5. ORAL REPORTS 5 -A. Oral report from APAC. Lee Perez, APAC Chair, spoke about the transition from the APAC to the various Boards and Commissions which will be presented next month. Also, members of APAC have been working very hard with staff in terms of planning the various public meetings, specifically the workshops of March 3rd and 23rd. He expects a successful meeting. 5 -B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. February 3rd was the last meeting. The next meeting has been rescheduled to March 14th from March 3rd to accommodate the workshop. Three main items were discussed: 1) Remediation on OU5, Coast Guard North housing. The final plan was due on February 18th, heading for a record of detemiination and then implementation later this year. 2) Sites 6,7,8,9 by Encinal High School — preliminary scope of work is out and final comments are due this month. Hope to proceed with that in May 2005. 3) Discussion about location of some nuclear propulsion work and general radiological materials and disposal out at the site in the Northwest Territory. A survey called the Historical Radiological Survey Assessment is being formulated so that they know exactly what happened in that location. A lot of material is put out at these meetings and the coordination of these activities is something the public should be very interested in. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) One speaker, Bill Smith came up and spoke on various topics. 7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. 9. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 5 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, April 6, 2005 The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Vice Mayor Gilmore presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Absent: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 2, 2005. Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was seconded by Doug DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 3; Noes — 0; Abstentions —1. 3. PRESENTATION 3 -A. Presentation on the March 3rd and March 23rd Community Workshops regarding Transportation and the Preliminary Development Concept Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, gave an overview of the planning process for Alameda Point and the transportation planning process with presentations to follow. The consultant team was also present for the first time at an ARRA Board meeting. Mr. Thomas updated Members of the four major community workshops — that they've been very well attended. The Alameda Point Land Use team has also had a number of briefings with the Planning Board, Transportation Commission and other Boards and Commissions. There are two more major workshops planned, the next one is scheduled for Saturday, May 7th, with the final community workshop in early June. The plans are taking shape. For the next couple of workshops, the plans will be refined with input from the community (both the transportation and the land use plans). The March 3rd land use workshop will be rebroadcast on local cable channel 15 on April 7th, and the March 23rd transportation workshop on April 14th. Walter Rask and Jim Adams from Roma (Land Use consultants) were present, as well as Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers Transportation consultants) to give respective presentations. G: BaseResue &Redv /A ra/Minutes /2005104 -0G -05 regular minutes Walter Rask: Our agenda for this evening is two parts. The first part is to give an overview of the preliminary development concept including the next steps. Part 2 — Fehr and Peers will be presenting an overview of the transportation strategy focusing largely on the off base transportation issues having to do with capacity of tubes and bridges and the major street network. We'll be doing more work later internally on the base itself and their presentation will conclude with discussion of the next steps in that process. Land Use Slide Presentation Mr. Rask presented the history of the Reuse Plan the ARRA adopted in 1996, which set forward a basic framework for development not only of Alameda Point but also of the FISC and Annex properties on the East side of Main Street. He discussed that we are only dealing with the area west of Main Street. In 2003, the City Council adopted an amendment to the General Plan that refined the Reuse Plan for mostly for the areas west of Main although there was a small area on the northeast of Main and this set the basic framework for redevelopment of the base and the targets for build out, the framework for the larger transportation system and perhaps most importantly it set forth seven goals for redevelopment of the base: 1) to seamlessly integrate Alameda Point with the rest of the community, 2) that Alameda become a vibrant new neighborhood with a variety of uses in it; 3) to maximize the waterfront accessibility, 4) to deemphasize the auto and to make new development compatible with the transportation capacity that is available, and 5) to insure economic development, 6) provide a mixed use environment and finally, 7) to promote neighborhood centers. Mr. Rask discussed the challenges, including contractual commitments, large Historic district area, ground water contamination, the Tidelands Trust places restrictions on the use of lands under state tidelands and specifically excludes housing, the Wildlife Refuge, the green area, as the effect of constraining development on the blocks between the western boundary and Monarch Street, the 100 year flood area has to be mitigated either by raising the ground or providing some kind of a sea wall, young bay mud poses problems of structural stability because of the danger of liquefaction in earthquake events. There is also a whole gamut of regulatory agencies that have a say on these matters. The plan as it currently stands has two major aspects. The first is what we refer to as the framework plan that fixes the location and character of the major streets and open spaces on the base and also identifies opportunities for certain civic functions. The land use plan is the second half of the two part preliminary development concept. Mr. Rask discussed the community concerns about Measure A, the Historic areas, etc. He stated that the next steps in the planning process is to refine the plan and respond to the major issues that have come up in the last workshop. One is a desire to more closely examine the notion of neighborhood centers as the general plan calls for. More generally to address neighborhood character issues. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit enhancements are a similar theme. At the next workshop they will present some refinements, as well as new information on alternatives, and then the refined transportation plan. Mr. Rask stated that the final workshop in June will be to actually present the preliminary development concept and the transportation plan with the intent is to bring it to the ARRA board in July. 2 G: BaseResue& Redv /Arra/Minutes/2005 /04 -06 -05 regular minutes Transportation Presentation Matthew Ridgway and Michael Keeling from Fehr and Peers gave the transportation presentation. (Both the entire presentations are available for review and are on file with the ARRA Secretary) Mr. Ridgway gave an overview of the transportation strategy that has been developed and discussed some of the major components for sustainable transportation, including land use strategy, employment and retail, residential and retail, and to discourage auto use. The presentation included a menu of options and the challenges that go along with those options. There was much discussion about the Tubes getting more constrained and congested from the development within the region and Oakland. Mr. Ridgway presented some ideas about how to minimize the impact on the tube. The initial transportation strategy includes the use of ECO passes - the cost of purchasing ECO passes will be built into the homeowner's association fees for anybody who lives at Alameda Point. It will be built into the fees that are part of the employment component of Alameda Point as well. The plan also includes shuttle buses, enhanced ferry services to include bike stations, car share programs, multi modal transit center, onsite transportation coordinator (a person who organizes the car pools and van pools, makes sure the shuttles are operating efficiently) etc. The presentation also included BART and AC Transit options /route alternatives as well as a light rail option (Cybertran). In June, the transportation options will be moved on to a more detailed evaluation and the next steps include two major components: 1) continue to look at the long term transit options and 2) take the short terms transit options that we've talked about and look at them with much more detail so that we have something that is ready to construct on opening day of the project. Another point, according to the MTC, in terms of land use densities to support transit, Alameda would be considered suburban — rural, the density that you are talking about would fit into that category, which in their mind would be something that in terms of regional funding you would be very low on the list to compute for regional funding Member Gilmore thanked Mr. Ridgway and commented that the presentation was very infoiuiative "if somewhat sobering." Member Gilmore called several speakers: first speaker, Helen Sause, made comments on the community workshops she's attended, stating that the transportation system being developed is very critical. She discussed the need to find partners with the rest of Alameda, not just with Alameda Point, and to engage the rest of Alameda. Second speaker, Neil Sinclair of Cybertran, commented on the light rail option and stated that he anticipates being here in Alameda and continuing their development. 3 G: BaseResue &Redv /Arra/Minutes /2005/04 -06-05 regular minutes Third speaker, Diane Lichenstein, APAC Chair, commented on the tremendous amount of work and effort put into the community workshops and the preliminary development concept (PDC). Emphasized continued dialogue with community. Member Gilmore opened the item for discussion. Member Mataresse thanked staff and APAC for hosting the community workshops with the boards and commissions, etc. and appreciates the summaries of the meetings. He discussed the use of electric buses and liked the idea of the duplex shop houses in the historic buildings. Has one regret regarding "the Wall" and commented on the speed limit being dropped along Ralph Appezzato Pkwy. Member deHaan: Stated his appreciation for everything that's gone forward and particularly transportation, probably the most important segment. Had some concerns about the ferry service, that it should service Oakland as well. He stated he liked the idea of the ECO Pass but had concerns about how the fees are paid. He siso liked the idea of the tram. He stated that the realism is that the ferry system, the bus systems and some other rapid bus system is the solution. Member Daysog: Stated he was excited about the ECO pass and the BART shuttle alternative. Stated that the transportation solution for Alameda Point is really the transportation solution for the City of Alameda. Member Gilmore: Excellent presentation with an incredible amount of information in great detail yet very easy to understand. Agreed with Member Daysog that whatever transit solution that we end up with is a transit solution for the entire island and not just for Alameda Point, and that it needed to be in place yesterday. She made a specific comment about the potential light rail connection from Alameda Point to the Fruitvale BART station. Stated that we can't lose sight of the need for connections going off the island, but given our future developments — an "across island" transit corridor as well which has the potential of taking people out of their cars as they go from one end of the island to the other and generating more tax revenue for the city. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 5. ORAL REPORTS 5 -A. Oral report from APAC. APAC Chair Lee Perez commented on the tremendous amount of data received during this evening's presentation. He thanked staff and the experts for their wonderful job of drawing in citizens. Following the board's instructions, the APAC spent considerable amount of time discussing what could replace the APAC. He mentioned the letter which was sent to the board by APAC and hope that they will give it serious consideration. Mentioned the need of citizens' input. 4 G: BaseResue &Redv /Arra/Minutes/2005 /0406 -05 regular minutes Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked and congratulated the APAC as well as staff for the incredible outreach that was done because it has really shown in the increased attendance at the last several meetings. The APAC worked very hard to get the word out and it was nice to see the result and to have a reasoned dialogued among all the citizens of Alameda. 5 -B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. Member Matarrese had nothing to report as he was unable to attend the last RAB meeting due to illness. He stated he would be unable to attend the next meeting as well due to a special City Council meeting being held at the same time. He will provide the secretary with the minutes of the two meetings, so that they may be included in the packet. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) One speaker, Bill Smith spoke on various topics . 7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the open session meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Frankel ARRA Secretary 5 G: BaseResue &Redv /Arra/Minutes /2005/0406 -05 regular minutes Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Memorandum July 7, 2005 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: William C. Norton, Acting Executive Director SUBJ: Recommendation to Approve an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources Extending the Term 90 Days and Increasing the Budget by $54,000 for Environmental Consulting Services Background Russell Resources (previously contracting with the ARRA as Northgate Environmental) has provided environmental consulting services to the ARRA for the past seven years. They have reviewed and analyzed Navy environmental documents for the clean -up of East Housing, FISC Alameda Annex (FISCA) and the Alameda Naval Air Station (Alameda Point). They have attended and represented the City /ARRA at meetings with regulatory agencies and the Navy and have provided professional expertise to ARRA staff to allow full participation in the cleanup decisions made by the Navy. Discussion Russell Resources existing contract (as amended) for FY 04 -05 expired on June 30, 2005. The proposed contract amendment will extend the term of the contract for 90 days to September 30, 2005 and will increase the contract by $54,000 to cover ongoing activities related to the contracted scope of services. During this extended term, Russell Resources will support the discussions with the Navy related to the conveyance of Alameda Point and will provide technical support to the staff on current and future environmental remediation at the Base. In addition, Russell Resources will continue to attend all Base Closure Team (BCT) meetings, attend regularly scheduled ARRA Land Use and Conveyance Team meetings, attend ARRA/Navy negotiation meetings (as requested), and attend other technical meetings that may be necessary to support conveyance of Alameda Point. Finally, Russell Resources will review all technical documents including reports and work plans and prepare comments on behalf of the ARRA to support the successful transfer and redevelopment of Alameda Point. The attached list ( "Exhibit A ") identifies the documents which will be issued by the Navy for review and comment. Either before or at the conclusion of the 90 -day term extension, and based on the status of conveyance negotiations with the Navy, a new contract with Russell Resources will be negotiated and submitted to the ARRA Board for your consideration. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Fiscal Impact July 7, 2005 Page 2 The proposed $54,000 budget increase will be funded by bond funds secured by Alameda Point lease revenues to fund the ARRA led pre - development period planning activities at Alameda Point. Recommendation It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approve a contract amendment with Russell Resources for environmental consulting services to extend the term of the contract by 90 days and to increase the contract budget by $54,000. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Little Development Sery Director By: Stephen Proud Alameda Point Project Manager Attachments: Exhibit A Contract Amendment — Russell Resources Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Couxlev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\STAFFREP\2005Vuly 14\Russell Resources Aux•ud_Report.doc Exhibit A Upcoming Documents of Significance forReview Comment Site /document Dates Issued Comments Due Notes OU -1 Site 14 Draft Proposed Plan Draft final Proposed Plan 17- Oct -05 16- Nov -05 16- Dec -05 16- Jan -06 NW Territory: involved in Tidelands Trust swap OU -1 Site 15 Draft Proposed Plan Draft final Proposed Plan 27- Jun -05 27- Jul -05 26- Sep -05 26- Oct -05 NW Territory involved in Tidelands Trust swap OU -1 Sites 6, 7, 8, 16 Draft Proposed Plan Draft final Proposed Plan 13- Oct -05 14- Nov -05 14- Dec -05 13- Jan -06 Mostly in EDC -5 OU -2A Sites 9,13,19, 22, 23 Draft Feasibility Study report Draft final Feasibility Study report 29- Jul -05 27- Sep -05 25- Nov -05 26- Dec -05 Industrial area east of Seaplane Lagoon OU -2B Sites 3, 4, 11, 21 Draft Feasibility Study report 13- Sep -05 14- Nov -05 Industrial area along Atlantic Avenue OU -2C Sites 5, 10,12 Draft Remedial Investigation report Draft final Remedial Investigation report 1- Jul -05 30- Aug -05 31- Oct -05 30- Nov -05 Industrial area north of Seaplane Lagoon OU -3 Site 1 Draft Feasibility Study report Draft final Feasibility Study report 9- May -05 8- Aug-05 6- Sep -05 6- Oct -05 Landfill in NW Territory OU -4A Site 2 Draft Remedial Investigation report 8- Nov -05 9- Jan -06 Landfill in SW corner of base OU -4B Site 17 Draft Proposed Plan Draft final Proposed Plan 29-Aug-05 28- Sep -05 28- Oct -05 28- Nov -05 Seaplane Lagoon OU -4C Site 29 Draft final Record of Decision 19- Aug -05 19- Sep -05 Skeet range offshore of NW Territory OU -5 Site 25 Soil Draft final Proposed Plan Draft Record of Decision 29- Jul -05 29- Aug -05 27- Sep -05 28- Nov -05 Coast Guard housing: precedent of EDC -5 OU -5 Site 25/1R02 Groundwater Draft final Proposed Plan Draft Record of Decision 29- Jul -05 29- Aug -05 27- Sep -05 28- Nov -05 Coast Guard housing and FISC groundwater OU -6 Site 26 Draft Proposed Plan Draft final Proposed Plan 20- Jun -05 20- Jul -05 19- Aug -05 19- Sep -05 Western hangar zone OU -6 Site 27 Draft final Remedial Investigation report Draft Feasibility Study report 25- Jul -05 24- Aug -05 24- Oct -05 23- Dec -05 SE corner of Seaplane Lagoon: involved in Tidelands Trust swap OU -6 Site 28 Draft Proposed Plan Draft final Proposed Plan 22- Sep -05 24- Oct -05 23- Nov -05 23- Dec -05 Todd Shipyard: adjacent to and may impinge on EDC -5 Site 30 Draft final Remedial Investigation report Draft Feasibility Study report 15- Aug -05 14- Sep -05 12- Oct -05 12- Dec -05 Miller School: may be precedent for EDC -5 Site 31 Draft final Remedial Investigation workplan 16- Aug -05 15- Sep -05 Marina Village: may be precedent for EDC -5 Site 34 Draft Remedial Investigation workplan Draft final Remedial Investigation workplan 8- Jul -05 6- Sep -05 7- Nov -05 7- Dec -05 NW Territory: involved in Tidelands Trust swap Site 35 Draft Remedial Investigation workplan Draft final Remedial Investigation workplan 15- Aug -05 14- Sep -05 28- Sep -05 5- Oct -05 EDC -5 EDC -3 Draft Site Inspection report Draft final Site Inspection report 1- Aug -05 30- Sep -05 29- Nov -05 29- Dec -05 NW Territory: involved in Tidelands Trust swap PBC -1A Revised draft Site Inspection report Draft final Site Inspection report 29- Aug -05 28- Oct -05 27- Dec -05 26- Jan -05 NW Territory: involved in Tidelands Trust swap Basewide Groundwater Basewide Groundwater Monitoring Report 1- Aug -05 1- Aug -05 Basewide FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT This Amendment of the Agreement, entered into this day of July 2005, by and between ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Joint Powers Authority, (hereinafter referred to as "ARRA ") and RUSSELL RESOURCES, INC., a California corporation, whose address is 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, CA 94903 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On July 2, 2003 an agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. (hereinafter "Agreement "). B. On June 30, 2004, an amendment to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. C. On August 4, 2004, a second amendment to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. D. On September 29, 2004, a third amendment and novation to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA, Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. and Russell Resources, Inc. E. ARRA and Russell Resources, Inc. desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as follows: 1. Paragraph 1 ( "Term ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: "The term of this agreement shall commence on the 2„ d day of July 2003, and shall terminate on the 30th day of September 2005, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein." 2. Paragraph 2 ( "Services to be Performed ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: "Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A -2" which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference." 3. Paragraph 3 ( "Compensation to Consultant ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: "Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount not to exceed $206,000.00 (Exhibit "A ") and $260,000.00 (Exhibit "A -2 ")." 4. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. Russell Resources, Inc. July 2005 Page 1 of 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. ALAMEDA REUSE AND RUSSELL RESOURCES, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Title: :'e(672. t$Sczc- �''rJ e"l William C. Norton Acting Executive Director RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: Leslie A. Little Development Services Director C7A)61AJ Stephen A. Proud Alameda Point Project Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1-22 /14-2 Teresa Hi Assistant City Attorney Russell Resources, Inc. July 2005 Page 2 of 3 Exhibit "A -2" Scope of Work for Russell Resources, Inc. Task 1: Attend Regularly Scheduled Base Closure Team (BCT) Meetings (preparation, meeting attendance, and documentation of meeting). Estimate 13 meetings. Budget: $26,000 (Assumes average cost is $2,000 per meeting) Task 2: Attend Regularly Scheduled ARRA Conveyance Team Meetings and Land Use Team Meetings. Estimate 26 meetings. Budget: $39,000 (Assumes average cost is $1,500 per meeting) Task 3: Attend ARRA/Navy Conveyance Meetings (preparation, meeting attendance, and documentation of meeting). Estimate 13 meetings. Budget: $32,500 (Assumes average cost is $2,500 per meeting) Task 4: Attend Meetings with Regulators and Technical Supplemental Meetings (preparation, meeting attendance, and documentation of meeting). Estimate 39 meetings. Budget: $39,000 (Assumes average cost is $1,000 per meeting) Task 5: Review of Technical Documents Including Reports and Work Plans. Estimate 40 documents. Budget: $100,000 (Assumes average cost of $2,500 per document) Task 6: Additional Consultation (at the request of ARRA) and contingency. The ARRA must preauthorize these tasks. Budget: 23,500 (Approximately 10% of the budget for Tasks 1 -5) Total Contract $260,000 Russell Resources, Inc. July 2005 Page 3 of 3 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum July 6, 2005 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: William C. Norton, Acting Executive Director Subj: Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point Background At the December 2004 ARRA Board Meeting, the ARRA elected to review and approve all subleases at Alameda Point. Discussion Attachment "A" describes the business terms for the proposed sublease(s). Fiscal Impact The following is a new lease: • The rent for TRISTAR EXPRESS, N.C. INC. is $72,000 annually or $0.11 per sq foot. The following are renewals of existing leases: • The rent for CSI MINI- STORAGE in Building 338 is $293,592 annually or $0.26 per sq foot for building space and $0.08 per sq foot for land. • The rent for CSI MINI- STORAGE in Bldg 608 is $48,000 annually or $0.22 per sq foot. • The rent for RICHARD MILT ER PHOTOGRAPHY in Bldg 621 is $38,556 annually or $0.35 per sq foot. • There is no fiscal impact on the CITY OF ALAMEDA Dog Exercise Park. Recommendation It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body authorize the Acting Executive Director to execute the proposed subleases. Leslie Little Development Services Director Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Comlev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ ARRA \STAFFREP\2005Uuly 14\ARRA Lease Staff Report_July 14, 2005.doc Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority By: Attachment: Proposed Sublease Business Terms WN /LL/NB:dc July 6, 2005 Page 2 Nanette Banks Finance & Administration Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA \STAFFREP\2005Uu1y 14\ARRA Lease Staff Report _July 14, 2005.doc Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ATTACHEMENT "A" PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS July 6, 2005 Page 3 TENANT BUILDING SIZE (SF) TERM RENT Tristar Express, N.C. Inc. Lot 393 53,280 18 months $6,000 /mo. CSI Mini - Storage, LLC Bldg 338 53,200 Bldg 132,930 Land 5 years $24,446/mo. CSI Mini - Storage, LLC Bldg 608 17,789 5 years $4,000 /mo. Richard Miller Photography Bldg 621 9,198 2 years $3,213/mo. City of Alameda, Dog Exercise Park Land 67,366 5 years -aive'd Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\STAFFREP\2005\July 14\ARRA Lease Staff Report_July 14, 2005.doc City of Alameda Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 22, 2005 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: William C. Norton Acting Executive Director RE: Report Amending the Approved FY 2005 -2006 ARRA Budget to Include $225,000 for Repairs to the Al Dewitt 0' Club Background The City of Alameda took over the operations and maintenance of the foiiiier Navy Officer's Club in 1997. The building was designated for a long -term public use in the Community Reuse Plan. The Navy neglected the building for a significant period of time prior to the City's possession of the property. The roof leaked and caused damage throughout the building. In 1998, the ARRA installed a new roof at a cost of $230,000 and performed mold remediation for $25,000. No other ARRA funds have been spent on the facility since 1998. Discussion The City of Alameda Recreation and Parks department (ARPD) has expanded the use of the facility from primarily a banquet use to a community center. Along with private rentals, ARPD currently offers the site for corporate training, use by community groups, Alameda Unified School District, and city -run recreation programs. ARPD has been able to generate enough funds for some minor cosmetic repairs such as a new canopy over the walkway and some carpet improvements, but a lot still remains to be done. The proforma for the proposed new development of Alameda Point anticipates some significant (up to $2 million) improvements to the O'Club in the last trimester of Phase I. Until then attached is a list of the itemized repairs that staff recommends proceeding with immediately. If the noted upgrades are completed, it is hoped that the facility will generate more revenue and will become a desirable location for use by a larger segment of the community. Fiscal Impact The ARRA lease revenue end of the year fund balance will be reduced by $225,000. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Recommendation June 22, 2005 Page - 2 - It is recommended that the ARRA Governing Body Amend the Approved FY 2005 -2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000 for repairs to the Al Dewitt 0' Club at Alameda Point. LL/NB: do Attachment G: CD\Nanette\O' C I ub F: City Leases \O'Club Rqsp - tfully submitted; -;r L 'sle Little ' Development Services Director By: Nanette Banks Finance & Administration Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 7, 2005 To: William C. Norton Acting City Manager From: Dale Lillard, Acting Director Alameda Recreation and Parks RE: Proposed Improvements to the DeWitt Officers' Club Over the course of the recently completed FY 2004 -05, staff has been soliciting input regarding desired improvements to the Officers' Club at Alameda Point. Information was provided by a variety of groups who have held events in the building such as private rentals for receptions and parties, community groups, non- profit organizations, and City staff. Listed below are a summary of these improvements which include cost estimates. These estimates were obtained through our experience with similar types of jobs in other facilities or estimates that have been provided by local contractors who have performed similar work in the building. However, it should be noted that all of the estimates could vary due to unforeseen problems that may not be visible without further exploration. Lobby Replace Carpet $4,300 Trident Room Replace /Repair Ceiling Damaged $7,500 by Roof Leak Replace Carpet $8,700 Replace Windows $8,000 Purchase Window Coverings $5,000 Dedicated to Excellence, Corn,nitted to Service RE: Proposed Improvements to the DeWitt Officers' Club Page -2- Main Dining Room Replace Carpet $13,500 Repair/Replace Ceiling Damaged by Roof Leak $16,000 Replace Bar Counter Top $2,000 Replace Windows $10,000 Replace Window Coverings $5,000 Refinish Dance Floor $3,500 Squadron Room Replace Windows and Refinish Sills $12,500 Replace Carpet $2,150 Terrace Room Replace Ceiling Tiles $10,000 Replace Carpet $7,200 Paint $7,500 Bar Area Removal of Existing Bar $10,000 Repair of Water Damage to Floors & $45,000 Installation of Carpet Ceiling Repairs $30,000 Paint & Window Coverings $15,000 Total Improvements: $222,850 Completion of the work outlined above will provide immediate, as well as long-term benefit to the City. Benefits Include: Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service RE: Proposed Improvements to the DeWitt Officers' Club Page -3- 1. An immediate increase in the amount of useable space available for community groups, non - profit organizations, and private rentals. The renovation of the bar area will increase the maximum capacity of the site to approximately 450. Currently, there is a severe shortage of venues to hold events of this size forcing potential rental patrons and some non - profits to seek locations outside the City. 2. The improvements will also increase the overall aesthetic appeal of the facility resulting in additional rental business and a corresponding increase in the potential for revenue generation. It is estimated that the completion of the improvements will increase revenue over their current levels ($75,000 per year) by 10 -15% in the first year and 20% in each subsequent year. The increase is projected to be slightly less in the first year due to the time the building will be unavailable to allow the work to be completed. 3. The improvements will also help preserve this 65 year old historic structure. We look forward to the possibility of completing these desperately needed improvements to such a valuable and historic City facility. Dale Lillard, Acting Director Alameda Recreation & Parks DL:bf cc: Leslie Little, Development Svs. Director Nanette Banks, Finance & Admin. Mgr. Lucretia Akil, Mgmt. Analyst Dedicated to Excellence, Conunitted to Service Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum July 6, 2005 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority William C. Norton, Acting Executive Director Presentation of Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept From: Re: Background 6 -A In December 2003, the City of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) initiated an 18- month, ARRA led pre - development effort to (i) prepare a Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point and (ii) negotiate a conveyance agreement for Alameda Point with the U.S. Navy. Per the ARRA's direction, the PDC and the conveyance agreement were to be prepared simultaneously and be closely coordinated to ensure that the development plan would facilitate property conveyance and that the conveyance agreement would ensure efficient and appropriate redevelopment of the fouler Naval Air Station. Over the course of the last 18 months, the ARRA and its staff have worked closely with the Alameda community to develop the PDC for Alameda Point. Six well - attended public workshops were held to receive community input on the plan. The workshops were held at a variety of locations throughout the city, and several workshops were televised on the local cable channel. The Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) provided guidance to the staff and the community throughout the public process and assisted with the transmittal of information to the City's Boards and Commissions. The Alameda Planning Board and the Alameda Transportation Commission each co- hosted one workshop with the APAC. With the assistance and guidance of the Alameda community, the staff /consultant team was able to prepare the draft PDC, which is on file with the City Clerk and provided to the ARRA Board under separate cover. The PDC is a conceptual development plan designed to guide the implementation of the community's vision for the redevelopment of the former Alameda Naval Air Station. The PDC provides a specific development program and illustrative plan for a 700 -acre portion of the former Naval Air Station. The land use plan is supported by a transportation strategy, an open space plan, an affordable housing program, a historic preservation strategy, and an infrastructure plan. The PDC is designed to facilitate conveyance, redevelopment and reuse of the fouler Naval Air Station in a manner that is: • Consistent with the 1996 NAS Community Reuse Plan and the 2003 General Plan Amendment for Alameda Point; • Sensitive to the unique physical, environmental, institutional and contractual constraints at Alameda Point; • Financially feasible; and • Responsive to current community concerns, interests, and visions. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority July 6, 2005 Page 2 By providing a greater level of specificity than is provided in the Community Reuse Plan and General Plan, the PDC serves as a roadmap for the pursuit of land use entitlements for the redevelopment of Alameda Point. The PDC also identifies important questions, issues, and development details that must be resolved through the entitlement or environmental review process prior to actual development. Discussion The completion of the PDC and the six ARRA- sponsored community workshops is an important milestone in the redevelopment effort for Alameda Point. The completion of the PDC provides an opportunity to assess the City's progress toward refining the development plan and highlight some of the major issues that will require additional discussion and eventual resolution as part of the entitlement process. In addition to the following summary of accomplishments and major remaining issues, Attachment A includes citizen comments on the PDC received by staff since the last community workshop: Informing the Community about Constraints and Tradeoffs: The six public workshops provided an important opportunity to transmit a large amount of information about Alameda Point to the Alameda community. As a result, the community members that attended the workshops were able to better understand and debate the various tradeoffs that will be necessary to achieve a final development plan for the site. They are also better prepared to assist the ARRA and the Master Developer through the next phases of the planning, environmental review and entitlement process, which will require difficult decisions, tradeoffs, and compromises. Financial Feasibility: Throughout the workshop series, the staff /consultant team emphasized that achieving financial feasibility and protecting the City's General Fund requires difficult tradeoffs and compromises between competing community priorities for Alameda Point. At the meetings, the community debated various tradeoffs and discussed how best to balance community goals for a mix of housing types, affordable housing, open space, transportation options, and historic preservation. As the project moves forward, the key goal of ensuring a financially viable project, and preserving fiscal neutrality for the City's general fund, will continue to be evaluated against the various land use trade -offs. Framework Plan: The PDC includes a Framework Plan that establishes the general pattern and distribution of primary open spaces, streets, and infrastructure necessary to support the mixed -use development program. The Framework Plan's interconnected network of parks and grid pattern of streets and walkways provide an organizing structure to the overall development consistent with the community goals for Alameda Point as articulated in the General Plan. The Framework Plan was well received by the community and will provide an excellent basis for the review, approval, and development of the important public areas at Alameda Point. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp ARRMSTAFFREP\2005\Tuly 14 \PDC Staff Report.Revised,july 14, 2005.doc Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority July 6, 2005 Page 3 Detailed Land Use Plan: The PDC land use plan and development program represents an important update to the original Reuse Plan to reflect current market conditions, ensure financial feasibility, and meet General Plan and Housing Element objectives and goals. The development program is provided in tabular folur and illustrated for the community in an illustrative plan. The illustrative plan is significantly more detailed and informative than the 1996 Reuse Plan and the 2003 General Plan land use plans and is designed to help the community visualize future development at Alameda Point. Throughout the workshop series, it became clear that additional detailed illustrations, graphic simulations, and visual aids to envision the plans for specific sub -areas of the development will be helpful as the plan moves forward. The community review of the detailed PDC land use plan and graphics was invaluable in helping to clarify and isolate issues for discussion and identify the issues that will need more work during the environmental review and entitlement process. Transportation: Solving the "transportation problem" has always been one of the biggest challenges facing the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Although transportation will continue to be a major issue throughout the planning and entitlement process, one result of the 18 -month ARRA -led predevelopment period is a transportation strategy that will make Alameda Point less dependent on automobiles and improve transit services throughout the City. With the assistance of the Alameda community, Transportation Commission, AC Transit, the Water Transit Authority, and BART, the staff /consultant team developed phased transportation strategy designed to: • Make Alameda Point the Alameda neighborhood with the best and most frequent transit service and the highest transit ridership in the City. • Make transit services more frequent and effective for all Alameda residents so that Alameda will be able to further improve on its already excellent record of transit use. • Attract residents and businesses that are willing to pay for and use transit as an alternative to the automobile. • Provide extensive "day one" transportation facilities that can be upgraded and improved with each phase of the project and as part of future developments throughout the City. Despite the significant progress made on finding viable transit solutions, traffic will continue to be a major concern for many members of the Alameda community that will need to be carefully analyzed during the environmental review and entitlement process. Although many members of the community argue that the comprehensive solution to Alameda and the Bay Area's long -term traffic problems is the development of improved transportation and transit alternatives (such as those described in the Alameda Point Transportation Strategy), many community members remain concerned that worsening congestion at the estuary crossings and on the regional roadway and freeway system can only be lessened through limits on development, both locally and regionally. The environmental review and entitlement process for Alameda Point will build upon the Alameda Point Transportation Strategy but will also require significant additional traffic analyses, detailed transportation improvement phasing, cooperation and partnerships with the City of Oakland, and well crafted traffic mitigations. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \COnndev\Base Reuse& Redevp ARRA\STAFFREP\2005\July 14 \PDC Staff Report.Revisedjuly 14, 2005.doc Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority July 6, 2005 Page 4 Historic Preservation: The PDC embraces the importance of the NAS Historic District and preserves 52 of the 86 contributing buildings in the District. The commitment to preserve 52 contributors represents a significant financial commitment. For example, the Bachelor's Officers Quarters and Mess Hall (Buildings 2 and 3) will require significant subsidies from the project to be preserved and rehabilitated for adaptive reuse consistent with the PDC. The unique design/function of some of the military structures, the lack of marketable reuse alternatives and the high cost of building renovation has led to the removal of a limited number of the contributing buildings in the PDC. Throughout the workshop series, the staff /consultant team emphasized the preliminary findings that a financially feasible project would not be able to support adaptive reuse of all 86 contributing buildings in the Historic District. (This preliminary conclusion was not entirely unexpected. Even the Reuse Plan illustrative plan shows removal of a number of contributing buildings.) After extensive community discussion, the PDC plan recommends the removal of a number of warehouses and support buildings in the "Shops Area ", removal of the Bachelor Officers Quarters (BOQ - Building 17) and removal of the 18 "Big Whites" to make room for the residential development necessary to make the PDC financially feasible. The decision to remove these buildings was informed by extensive geotechnical analysis and evaluation by the City's historic preservation consultants. However, some members of the community remain concerned by the loss of the Big Whites and, to a lesser extent, the loss of the BOQ. The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) has submitted a letter which helps to clarify which buildings will likely be the focus of discussion in the next phase of the planning process. AAPS identifies a group of 20 "first priority" buildings for preservation. The PDC preserves 19 buildings in that group. Within the first priority group, the PDC recommends removal of Building 17 to make room for approximately 70 new residential units. AAPS's "second priority" group of buildings includes the 18 Big Whites and the Admiral's House. While the PDC preserves the Admiral's House it includes the removal of the Big Whites to provide room for approximately 120 new residential units. Preservation of the 18 Big Whites and the BOQ would require the development of 190 units at another location to maintain the financial feasibility of the project or alternatively Alameda Point development costs would need to be reduced. Interestingly, many members of the larger community expressed more concern about the loss of the Big Whites than the loss of the BOQ. AAPS's "third priority" group includes seven buildings, only three of which are actually contributors to the district. The PDC recommends removal of two of the three contributors (Building 8 and 9 in the Shops Area). Buildings 8 and 9 are removed in the PDC to make room for approximately 100 new housing units. Of the non - contributors, the PDC and AAPS differ on the merits of saving building 78 (the WAVE barracks removed for residential development) and the East Gate. Alternatives and Measure A: At the community's request, the public workshops included a great deal of inforruation and discussion about the constraints on development at Alameda Point imposed by Measure A. This process resulted in a "Non- Measure A" alternative that illustrates some of the Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Comdcv\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA1STAFFREP\200Nuly 14 \P0C Staff Report.Revisedululy 14, 2005.doc Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority July 6, 2005 Page 5 development options that might be available if Alameda Point were exempted from Measure A. (At each workshop, the staff /consultant team emphasized that amending Measure A is not a change that could be recommended in the PDC, given that Measure A was a citizen - enacted Charter Amendment that can only be changed by a majority vote of the citizens of Alameda.) In addition to providing the information requested by the community, the alternative also provides the basis for an alternative to be evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the evaluation of alternatives, and the Oakland - Alameda- Chinatown Settlement Agreement requires that one of the alternatives be a higher density, transit - oriented alternative, even if that alternative is not consistent with City Charter. EIR Project Description: Before any final actions can be taken, the City will need to complete an environmental review of a specific development proposal. The PDC provides a project description for the required EIR. During the environmental review, the issues discussed throughout the community process will be further evaluated and resolved. At the end of the entitlement process a Phase I project will be defined and permitted. Policy Consistency The PDC is designed to implement the General Plan. However, a limited number of amendments to the General Plan will be necessary to adopt the PDC, or approve a final development that is consistent with the PDC. Development Program: The General Plan Development Program shown in Table 2 -7 would be amended to reflect the PDC's three -phase development program. To accommodate the Phase III non - residential development envisioned in the PDC, the General Plan's non - residential development program would need to be increased from approximately 2.3 million square feet to 3.4 million square feet. Marina Housing: Policy 9.3.m in the General Plan states: "Limit housing development in the Marina District to the eastern and northeastern portions of the marina to avoid proximity to the Wildlife Refuge." The PDC shows housing in these areas. These residential areas are in Phase II and are consistent with the Wildlife Buffer and Biological Opinion. However, if the City were to entitle residential development in this area, a General Plan Amendment would be necessary. Big Whites: Policy 9.3.X states: "Preserve the Big Whites for their historical significance, and encourage surrounding development that is complementary." Removal of the Big Whites as envisioned in the PDC will require that this policy be amended. Fiscal Impact Presentation of the Alameda Point PDC has no fiscal impact. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:1Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\STAFFREF12005UuIy 141FDC Staff Report.Reviscdjuly 14, 2005.doc Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Recommendation July 6, 2005 Page 6 It is recommended that the ARRA Board take public comment on the PDC at this time. No formal action is being requested. Respectfully submitted, Leslie A. Little Development rvices Director Stephen Proud Alameda Point Project Manager By: A i rew Thomas Supervising Planner WN/LL/SP /AT:la Attachment "A" - Final Community Workshop Comments Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GAComdev'Base Rcuse& Redevp\ARRA\STAFFREPl200SUuly 14 \PDC Staff Report.Revisedjuly 14, 200S.doc The IAMEDA 111 TURAL Preservation Society Mr. Andrew Thomas Supervising Planner City of Alameda 950 West Mall Sq., Rm. 246 Alameda, CA 94501 Attachment A Public correspondence received since final Public Workshop. 7 June 2005 Subject: Preservation of Alameda Naval Air Station Historic District at Alameda Point Dear Mr. Thomas: As you know, members of Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) have worked with members of the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) to identify the buildings most worthy of preservation and re -use at Alameda Point. We commend the City and Alameda Point Community Partners LLP on the plans produced thus far, and we appreciate your efforts to meet with us and to respond to our suggestions. We understand the many challenges to preserving the entire Naval Air Station Historic District. AAPS remains concerned, however, that the ambitious redevelopment plans could result in the permanent loss of tangible links to Alameda's important role in World War II. According to the National Register evaluation (Woodbridge, 1992), the NAS was the most important new air station of the World War II period on the west coast. It was the major air base for the naval bases in the San Francisco Bay Area. Furthermore, the NAS is significant for its Streamline Moderne architectural style of the central core of administrative buildings, residences, and Art Deco style monumental sculptures. The NAS is a rare use of this architectural style for military buildings in the U.S. (Mikesell, 1997). The State Historic Preservation Officer determined the NAS historic district to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. While no single building was determined individually significant, the district is a concentration of buildings united by a formal plan. The entire district represents a distinguishable entity significant for its history and architecture. The historic district constitutes a significant cohesive site plan, landscape, and architectural design composition. Removal of many of the significant buildings while retaining the street plan alone for new infill construction will not result in the preservation of the historic district. We acknowledge that many of the hundreds of buildings on the base will need to be removed to make way for redevelopment. At the same time, however, we believe it essential that the approximately 50 buildings or objects identified on the enclosed priority list be preserved. Therefore, AAPS requests that the City conduct an adaptive reuse P.O. Box 1677 Alameda, CA 94501 510- 986 -9232 Mr. Andrew Thomas Re: Preservation of NAS Historic District at Alameda Point 6/7/05 p. 2 study for every building identified on the enclosed list if it is proposed for removal in the Preliminary Development Concept or any of the PDC options, so that the full range of options can be considered. AAPS supports the adaptive reuse of the buildings listed on the attached page, and has provided a number of preliminary suggestions for reuse in the workshops and in previous communications with you. The removal of many historic buildings appears to be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Navy's transfer of the former NAS to the City. Therefore, AAPS requests a thorough explanation of and schedule for the City's process for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Under the Preliminary Development Concept, preservation of the Senior Officer Housing ( "Big Whites "), the Admiral's House, and the O'Club are threatened by the soil conditions and potential flood hazard. We believe these buildings should be preserved in place. If preservation of the houses and O'Club in place proves too difficult or costly, AAPS would support relocating them in order to preserve them only as a last resort alternative. We offer the following proposal for your consideration: the Big Whites could be permanently relocated to the adjacent block directly west of their current location. The houses could be placed closer together than under the existing condition, but they would still be in a setting and street plan reminiscent of the original layout. This less costly alternative would require the houses to be moved only once onto new foundations on the new site, rather than from their current locations temporarily and then, following ground remediation, back to their original locations. The O'Club and /or. the Admiral's House could be relocated to the same block also. Please refer to the enclosed plan for saving the Big Whites (note that the plan as initially drafted calls for moving twenty -four houses, although only seventeen are historically significant; the remaining space on the block could be occupied by the O'Club and/or the Admiral's House). Finally, AAPS once again requests a review copy of the complete geotechnical studies completed for the area now occupied by the Big Whites, Officer's Club, and Admirals' House. The City and developer have based many of their plans on the results of these studies. It is difficult for us to come to accurate conclusions about the proposal to remove these buildings without reviewing the technical data. AAPS requests the City to make a firm commitment to preserving the historic district, and to identify which buildings are to be preserved. Alameda is honored to contain a historic district tied to events of national historical significance. The NAS Historic District is more than worthy of preservation in as complete an entity as possible. We look forward to working with the City and its developers as redevelopment concepts are refined. AAPS will pursue the addition of select buildings outside the National Register district boundaries to the City's City Monument designation, and their nomination to the Historical Building (Study) List. These buildings include the Flight Control Tower, the Mr. Andrew Thomas Re: Preservation of NAS Historic District at Alameda Point 6/7/05 P. 3 WAVE Barracks, the SIMA dive locker, the Boathouse, the East Gate, the airplanes on pedestals, and a Quonset Hut (Bldg 346). If you would like to discuss this letter, please contact Elizabeth Krase at (510) 286 -5612 (office) or (510) 814 -9431 (home) or me at (510) 523 -0411. If you wish to respond to this letter by mail, please send it to c/o Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester St., Alameda CA 94501. Christop r Buckley, Preserva Action C cc: Mayor and City Councilmembers City Planning Board Historical Advisory Board Alameda Naval Air Museum AAPS Board and Preservation Action Committee members Attachments: 1. Alameda Point/ Alameda Naval Air Station: Priority List For Preservation 2. Alameda Naval Air Station Historic District Map (with priority buildings indicated) 3. Alternative Proposal for Saving the Big Whites Mr. Andrew Thomas Re: Preservation of NAS Historic District at Alameda Point 6/7/05 p. 4 AAPS & ANAM Priority List For Preservation of Buildings of Alameda Naval Air Station/ Alameda Point First priority (administrative core buildings and hangars) #1 (Main Administration Building /City Hall West); #2, 3, & 4 (Bachelor Enlisted Quarters); #16 (Medical Clinic); #17 (Bachelor Officer Quarters); #18 (Post Office/Recreation/Theater); #30 & 31 (Main Gatehouse & Sentry house at north entrance plus airplane on pedestal); #60 (Officers Recreation/ O'Club); #94 (Chapel); # 39, 40, & 41 (seaplane hangars), plus 11 & 12 (if restored); # 20, 21, 22, 23 (land -based hangars); # 77 (Air Terminal/Museum); #19 (Flight Control Tower). Second priority Big Whites (Senior Officer's Housing and Admiral's House) Third priority # 6 (Fire Station); # 8 (Multipurpose Admin); # 9 (Storage); # 78 (WAVE barracks); East Gate, plus the airplane on pedestal; # 1605 (Boat House); # 64 (SIMA Diving Locker); # 346 (Quonset Hut or perhaps any other Quonset hut) Historic landscaping _____n____ -.111 II. 1.ti.li . June 7, 2005 Alameda Naval Air Museum P. 0. Box 1769 Alameda, California 94501 To: Mr. Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner City of Alameda 950 West Mali Square, Room 246 Alameda California 94501 Subject: Preservation of Alameda Naval Air Station historic district at Alameda Point Dear Mr. Thomas, The members of the Alameda Naval Air Museum (UTAM) have worked with the members of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) to identify the buildings most worthy of preservation and reuse at Alameda Point. We appreciate the City and Alameda Point Community Partners concerning the plans produced to date. Thank you for responding to our suggestions. We are interested in saving as much of the historic district as possible. The ambitious redevelopment plans could result in the permanent loss of tangible links to the Naval Air Station's role in World War II. In Architectural historian Sally Woodbridge's report,1992, "NAS Alameda was the most important air station of the World War II era on the West Coast." It was the major Air Station for naval bases in the San Francisco Bay Area. She indicates that the art deco/moderne architectural style is significantly represented by the central core of administrative buildings, residences and monumental sculptures. The State Historic Preservation Office determined the NAS historic district to be elegible for listing in the national register of historic places. The historic district was determined to be architecturally significant. The design of the district is united by a formal plan which should be saved as is. Removal of many of the significant buildings while retaining the street plan alone for new in fill construction will not result in the preservation of the historic district. We know that some buildings will have to be lost to make room for new construction. However, we agree that it is essential that the approximately 50 buildings or objects identified in the enclosed priority list be preserved. We request that the City do an adaptive reuse study for every building identified on the list.We support the adaptive reuse of the buildings listed. Before any historic building is selected for removal,we request a thorough study of the City's process for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We are very concerned that under the preliminary planning the Officer's Club, Sernior Officer Housing, the Big Whites, are threatened by the soil conditions and potential flood hazard. We agree that these buildings should be preserved in place. If preservation of the houses and 0 Club in place prove too difficult or costly, we would support relocating them in order to preserve them. Simply trying to cram more units on each Big White lot is not a valid reason for destroying these historic residences. We concur with the proposal for relocation of the Big Whites suggested by the AAPS. Their proposal is that the houses could be placed closer together than under the existing conditions, but they would still be in an adjacent setting and street plan reminiscent of the original layout. This less costly alternate would require that the Big Whites be moved only once on to new foundations on the new site„ rather than from their current locations, following ground remediation, back to their original locations. The Alameda Naval Air Museum president requests a review of the complete geotechnicasl studies completed for the area now occupied by the Big Whites, Officer's Club and Admiral's House. The City and Developer have based many of their plans on the result of these studies. It is difficult for us to come to accurate conclusions about the proposal to remove the buildings without reviewing the technical data. The museum directors request that the City make a firm commitment to preserving the historic disctrict, and to identify which buildings are to be preserved. The NAS Historic District is deserving of being saved in as complete state as possible. We are privileged to be a part of the review process as the City and Developer move forward to refine their ideas. We believe that Historic preservation should be given the highest priority and continuing careful consideration. Respectfully submitted, 4 Marilyn York, President/C.E.O. Alameda Naval Air Museum Telephone: 510 352-2750 Town Planning Santa Clara St Alameda, CA June 5 2005 Dear Sir, RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2005 PERMIT CENTER ALAMEDA, CA 94501 I am writing to express my concern that our local government will ignore Measure A while planning the Navy base. I do not understand why taxpayers' time and money is being spent looking at non - Measure A development. Measure A was passed by the citizens of this community and I do not understand why our elected officials are ignoring it. Single family homes are what Alameda needs, not more empty apartment buildings. Thank you for remembering Measure A and using this as a guideline for the Navy Base plans. Regards, aolo AM Walsh 911 Chestnut Street Alameda, CA 94501 Andrew THOMAS - Alameda Point Preliminary Plans comments Page 1 From: <Zebra4000@aol.com> To: <ATHOMAS C ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 6/14/2005 6:24:32 PM Subject: Alameda Point Preliminary Plans comments Andrew, Thanks for the chance to give input. It seems like this thing goes on forever and we keep coming back over and over like broken records, but IT'S THE TRAFFIC! I like the transportation pass idea and the ferry I don't believe people will really get out of their cars without real pain. If we use Harbor Bay as an example the design there was to have many more people using the ferry, but this many years later.... they have a small loyal group who use it and the rest just love their cars or the ferry doesn't go south. I do appreciate all the work to try and come up with transit positive ideas, but unless we can curb the number of car owners all the great ideas are doomed to failure. Even if people have to pay a monthly fee to transit at the price of the housing most will not really care if they use it or not. There must be a contract to not own a car or more than one car that has some real consequence or it will not work. After the meeting I asked a number of people in my neighborhood how much of a tax would have to be to get them to give up their car and most said it would have to more than they could imagine. When I said how about a $2000 tax only one person who never drives said she "might" consider it not worth it, but she likes to have it In case." Most people just said with how much they pay for their cars a couple thousand wouldn't stop them, they wouldn't like it but it would not get them to give up their car. So what do we do ? ?? I think any increase in traffic is a losing proposition, and the non measure A idea really doesn't get us much except more traffic. So forget changing measure A to have to increase the number of units to such a degree just isn't worth it to anyone. I do look forward to seeing what some of the plans will really look like and will be there when that step happens. Thanks again you are doing a darn good job with all the constraints this project presents. And let me know about the NWSP comments. Sincerely, Debra Arbuckle Andrew THOMAS Alameda Point Development Page 1 From: "Audrey Lord- Hausman" <alord©ix.netcom.com> To: <athomas©ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 6/11/2005 8:19:58 AM Subject: Alameda Point Development Dear Andrew: I attended Wednesday's presentation and found it very interesting. We are particularly interested in the issue of same level (no stairs) housing opportunities as was brought up by one of the attendees. Persons with disabilities, physical limitations, elderly have issues that require living spaces with no stairs and this does not appear to be on the radar screen of many developments. Alameda is a community of extended families and seniors do not want to leave the island - either because of costs or the inability to find accessible housing configurations to suit their physical needs. As people retire, they want to stay in Alameda, maybe work part -time, volunteer and become involved in the community. Finding housing (whether it's a home, townhouse, etc) without having to maneuver extensive stairs can be a challenge. And what about senior complexes? Has that been taken into consideration for Alameda Point? I encourage you to look at Carlsbad by the Sea, in Carlsbad, California. It is an incredibly well run complex that could be very successful in an area like Alameda. In fact, Carlsbad and Alameda are about the same size. Thank you. Audrey Lord- Hausman Richard Hausman Alameda 510- 522 -4651 cc Commission on Disability Issues r II II. Z �- frJ i IN A_ % �_� &Zia /A X.r__$ 112C_PrCi ,/ ~ r , c 33 7 ZeX 37-1 r ■ II "e 1/11111 IV i �, J i♦ ♦ ur 7 v..- -- .i r�.. .Q in .I - 1 -�t e'_j`7,e?AJ.jr /1t 1 %C}JCS (jC+ y �l J. '4 a + ' M vi l 'f 4.(_� a fooR:z` eZ -- e y . -,1 (•