2008-11-05 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, November 5, 2008
Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a
request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board or a member of the public.
2 -A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 10, 2008.
2 -B. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 1, 2008.
2 -C. Approve a Permanent Waiver of License Fees for Alameda Unified School District Student
Activities.
2 -D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Building 43 & Associates,
Inc. at Alameda Point.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Alameda Point Update — Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative.
- Highlights of October 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
7. ADJOURNMENT
ARRA Agenda - November 5, 2008 Page 2
This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15.
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749 -5800 at
least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
• Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:27 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, ARRA, and CIC of
August 19, 2008.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member dellaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with St. Francis Electric for
Pier 2 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a contract not to exceed $1,344,744.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, gave an overview of the item and discussed the
Spring 2006 sublease of MARAD approved by the ARRA for 20 years for use of the piers at
Alameda Point. Pier 2 is an older, unreliable facility, and doesn't comply with current standards.
To upgrade to code, the underground transformers would need to be relocated above ground to
meet Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) requirements. In January 2007, the ARRA approved
design work for the electrical upgrade for Pier 2 improvements and the project was bid. A bid
was received for $1.7M for the project. The Board then directed staff to revise the project to
reduce the total cost. Staff and MARAD worked closely with AP &T to revise the technical
requirements to just upgrade the existing systems, which reduced the project cost significantly
for the next bid. Three bids were received, with St. Francis Electric with the lowest bid at
$1.29M. Staff is requesting approval to add a 5% contingency with add -on alternative for
concrete x- raying and independent testing for the Pier 2 Electrical upgrades, for a total cost not
to exceed $1,344,744.
Member Matarrese commented that the impact to the ARRA budget is that we are + $400,000,
and asked how much the ARRA owes to the City General Fund. Ms. Little replied that the
ARRA has two loan obligations, 1) ARRA debt obligation of $2.4M, and 2) the Alameda Point
Improvement Project (APIP) of $1.258M. Member Matarrese recommended it be considered
that the $400,000 be paid back to General Fund as part of a loan payment. Ms. Little explained
that the ARRA currently carries that as an expenditure, and it would go back to the General Fund
Reserve.
Staff and the Board discussed the ARRA lease revenues, and how they are not sufficient to cover
expenditures in totality. Member Gilmore asked whether there were any other large capital
projects that were going out for bid on this year. Ms. Little replied that the last roof repair project
was finished, as well as the preliminary assessment of the pier conditions, and that work will be
scheduled to start the piling and pier replacements. The greatest issue is that there are old
systems at Alameda Point — if there were a water or sewer problem or other major activity, we
need cash on hand to resolve those issues.
Member Matarrese expressed his concern that we're funding infrastructure that doesn't belong to
us, the City doesn't own the property, it still belongs to Navy. We're adding value to what the
Navy is putting a high price tag on. He stated that he would much rather put that money toward
unfunded liabilities of General Fund services. Member Gilmore agreed, stating that, in theory,
should we have a major system malfunction, there are tenants that pay to cover these issues.
There should be a balance while we're in a holding position with the Navy.
Vice Chair Tam motioned for approval of the Contract with St. Francis Electric, the
motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5,
Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3 -B. Alameda Point Update — Presentation of the Draft Development Concept.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Pat Keliher and
Peter Calthorpe, Urban Designer, who presented a powerpoint presentation of the draft
development concept to the Board and public. The presentation can be viewed at
www.alamedapointcommunity.com. After the presentation, Chair Johnson opened the item to
the Boardmembers for discussion. Member Matarrese asked if both plans assume a $108M
payment to the Navy, to which Ms. Potter replied, "yes."
Member Gilmore asked Mr. Calthorpe for more specific information regarding his comment on
the importance of phasing the transportation enhancements so housing could keep pace with the
capacity in the tube, asking if it can work, and when we will know. Pat Keliher, SunCal's
Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that Fehr & Peers, their Transportation Consultant, is
doing a detailed study on the traffic improvements and what the triggers are for the
enhancements. Mr. Keliher further stated that there is $90M worth of traffic improvements up to
the 4000 unit threshold, and that Fehr & Peers plan to have a public meeting focused specifically
on the transportation issues.
Chair Johnson asked if the Sports Complex will be part of the SunCal Presentation, to which Mr.
Keliher replied, "yes." He said that the Business Plan will include the commercial and retail
assumptions. Mr. Calthorpe added that the core area has to be built last, that a Main Street
environment cannot be built until the retail demand is in place.
Chair Johnson opened discussion to the public speakers. There were several speakers, most of
whom were in favor of supporting SunCal's plan. The ones that were not in favor of the SunCal
plan were concerned about the density of proposed mid -rise (12 -20 story residential units), non -
Measure A compliance, and transportation issues.
Member deHaan requested Mr. Keliher verify that the density of Alameda on the west end,
specifically the Summer Homes, was 30 units per acre and three - stories high. His concern
regarding the density was the Tube traffic and the alternative of bringing the bus service through
the Tube. Mr Keliher assured member deHaan that all these details are currently being vetted
out with Fehr & Peers and will be presented at their public meeting. Ms. Potter further explained
that there is always only going to be two lanes in the tube, and what one of the alternatives is, is
for a queue jump lane for the bus, which doesn't require additional lanes. The queue jump lane
gives priority to the buses and encourages increased ridership. Mr Keliher added that all
questions will be answered between the concept plan submittal and master plan submittal, and
that the transportation solution is a driving factor.
Member Gilmore requested a meeting before the City Council which is focused on transportation
issues be part of SunCal's presentation schedule. Mr. Keliher affirmed her request. Member
Gilmore further discussed that the two plans are not Measure A compliant, and asked what
SunCal's plan was if the citizens were to reject their proposals. Mr Keliher responded by saying
that they have no magic Measure A plan that could be financed, and there is no third alternative,
they would have to start over. Member Gilmore appreciated his honesty on the matter.
Member Matarrese addressed the transportation issue regarding commercial traffic — truck
routes, etc., and asked whether there was going to be a recommendation from the Transportation
Commission. Ms. Potter explained that the plan is to route the Development Concept to all the
boards and commissions for review and comment. Member Gilmore requested that the school
year commute traffic also be addressed.
Member Matarrese requested to see a commercial and industrial component of the plan, to be
examined with the same depth, what might be envisioned, and what are some of the plans to
bring the commercial and businesses in. He further discussed that Alameda does not have a
large commercial tax base. Economically, the tax burden is spread and residential tax payers are
shouldering the main load and maybe are at capacity. He would like to know the best mix of
commercial and how we might attract commercial business.
Vice Chair Tam discussed the importance of their role (as the ARRA Board) for the long -term in
guiding and approving a Development Plan that future councils and the community can
adaptively react to, manage, and govern under different challenges; as this plan will manifest
beyond the time that they're on this Board. She stated it is important to focus on the vision and
the core principles incorporated in the General plan, as they will all be pertinent 15 years later.
Chair Johnson thanked Pat and SunCal for doing a good job of working with the community and
being forthright with them. It's a difficult challenge and she appreciates all their efforts.
Member deHaan asked about the Fed -to -fed transfer to the VA of some of the property. Mr.
Keliher replied that SunCal has to assume the potential impacts of the VA hospital whether it
happens or not, stating that it devalues the other phases. They would work hand -in -hand with
the VA, making certain that the infrastructure and traffic impacts are taken in consideration. For
example, a VA Hospital is a 24/7 facilities hospital, it doesn't operate just during peak hours, so
when the traffic element is applied, it's another challenge. Member Matarrese requested dollar
figures attached to any reports on the this issues, stating that if the plan is for a Fed -to -Fed
transfer, then that cost should be shaved -off the $108M price for the impacts caused by the
remaining federal land.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
- RAB Comment Letter Regarding Installation Remediation Site 1
Member Matarrese wasn't able to attend last meeting, but received communication, a letter, from
Co- chair, George Humphreys, regarding the Site 1 remediation plan and Record of Decision
(ROD) which raised a lot of questions. The ARRA board took the position that they would not
accept uncharacterized landfill from Site 1, which was supposed to be scooped and removed
after characterization. Mr. Humphreys provided a summary of his letter and discussed some of
the technical details, highlighting the deficiencies in the Navy's proposed plan to remediate Site
1.
Mr. Humphreys explained that his letter is straightforward, stating that Site 1 has been releasing
contaminants to the bay for a number of decades and deficiencies in the site need to be remedied.
There is uncharacterized industrial -type waste that could be released in event of earthquakes,
shoreline erosion, inundation by global warming, and by burrowing animals. The City asked for
trenching, with the stated objectives to verify there weren't any intact drums. The trenching
report showed that, of the 11 trenches the Navy identified, seven of them showed levels of
radioactive contamination. It was concluded that the radium contamination is widespread and
scattered. He said a letter was sent from the Navy to the environmental agencies proposing to
move portions of Site I to Site 32, to shrink site 1, because they had found radioactive waste
deeper. He also described photos of liquefaction and sand boils during the Loma Prieta
earthquake, which he explained was a mechanism of how contaminated waste could be released
in the future, if left in place.
Member Matarrese reiterated that we have expertise on this board and commended the RAB for
taking a vote, making a stand and bringing these issues to light. He had two key concerns; first
that the material found was not ordinary household waste, rather, it is industrial waste plus
radioactive, which appears to be pervasive. It seems the Navy glossed over this in their proposed
plan. Secondly, Member Matarrese commented that it was disturbing that the plan was to
excavate some of the radioactive material and just bury it on another part of Alameda Point. He
requested the Board get a technical recommendation corroborating this report so that the ARRA
can take a position with the Navy and the regulators that what is proposed is not acceptable.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, said that staff would have something by the next
ARRA meeting.
Debbie Potter, in response to Member Matarrese's concern about the waste being relocated,
clarified the process. She explained that, at the request of the City, additional trenching was
done which identified more radioactive materials than anticipated. The Navy conducted a time -
critical removal of hot spots at Site 1, and proposed to move some of the remaining fill to Site
32. The plan was to grow Site 32, continue to test and modify boundaries so that Site 1
boundaries no longer included radioactive material. All this would trigger a brand new public
process for comment, new proposed plans, and provide input on how it should be remediated.
Member Matarrese viewed the relocation plan as a stall tactic and stated that the Navy should be
forced to remove the waste to a secure facility. Ms. Potter stated that the Navy will remove all
radioactive waste. Member Matarrese questioned why, if it were safe, does it have to be moved
and buried. Ms. Potter explained that it was her understanding that they are moving it in order to
excavate along the shoreline to address seismic issues. Dale Smith, RAB member, added that the
materials being moved were hazardous, but not radioactive. Chair Johnson stated that she
generally doesn't like the idea of moving the waste to another site, even if it's not contaminated.
Mr. Humphreys added that a key point is that there was no sampling of the soil inside that cell
area, which would determine if there were any non- radioactive materials (i.e., PCBs, heavy
metals, etc.).
The Board requested that Peter Russell, Alameda Point's environmental consultant, provide a
technical analysis of the materials from the RAB regarding Site 1, a written report of highlights
after every RAB meeting, and his analysis on Navy documents he's reviewed.
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 was one speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair Tam informed the other Members that Michael Park from the Alameda Theater
would like to schedule a re -shoot of the Council Members for his film that previews movies,
because of construction noise in the background.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
c2N61-
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:36 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Authorize Execution of a No -Cost Sublease for Alameda Development Corporation at
Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member Tam,
and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes — 5, Noes — 0, Abstentions — 0.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Approve the Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Disposition of the
Notices of Interest for the Homeless Accommodation/Public Benefit Conveyances for
the North Housing Parcel and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate the
Required Legally Binding Agreement
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief overview of the
item, stating that in November 2007, the Navy declared the North Housing Parcel, an additional
42 acre parcel, as surplus. The ARRA, as the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) is charged with
conducting the federal screening process, a mandated step before the Navy can dispose of
property. Three Notice of Interests (NOIs) and two requests for Public Benefit Conveyances
(PBCs) were reviewed in early September. The NOIs were analyzed against a number of criteria
including what project was being proposed, how well the project met unidentified needs of
homeless needs assessment, financial feasibility, and the organization's capacity to carry out the
project. One NOI from the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), didn't
meet the threshold requirement and was notified that they did not meet screening process. Of the
remaining two NOIs, the evaluation committee does not recommend moving forward with the
NOI received form Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) and Building Futures with Women and
Children (BFWC), to provide location for the Midway Shelter, in the event it loses it's lease
where currently located. There is a path forward to working with Navy on the existing location
of the shelter, which the Navy has committed to in writing to retain midway shelter in current
location. Also, the 42 -acre site was not an appropriate location for a multi- service center, which
should be in central location accessible by public transit.
The committee is recommending the NOI received from the City Housing Authority, APC, and
BFWC for 120 units of permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless people, with the
recommendation to move forward at 90 units rather than 120 units.
The two PBCs received were from the City's Recreation and Park department and from Habitat
for Humanity for self -help housing. We are recommending the PBC from Rec and Park, and will
indicate our support for Habitat for Humanity for 20 to 30 units of self -help housing. The Habitat
for Humanity PBC is approved by the federal housing agency, HUD; and the Department of
Interior would approve the Rec and Park PBC.
The next step is to begin negotiating a Legally Binding Agreement (LBA). The LBA is an
agreement document that goes forward to HUD, along with our amendment to the Community
Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan), HUD reviews the Reuse Plan and makes the ultimate determination of
how well it meets the needs of homeless accommodation. We are scheduling two community
meetings in November, on the 3`d with the Planning Board, and on Nov. 24th on the amendment
to the Reuse Plan, and draft LBA at its Dec. 3 meeting. The statutory requirement is to get
everything to HUD in December.
Member Matarrese asked how HUD weighs different factors during their evaluation of the
proposals. Ms. Potter explained that typically, the screening process regulations are broadly
drafted in order to give local jurisdictions a lot of leeway and opportunity for the Reuse Plan to
meet their needs. What they are looking for is a balance of homeless accommodation, and what
they call "other community goals ", in terms of job generation, economic development, housing,
and open space. Member Matarrese asked if there is a previous process which we were involved
in. Ms. Potter replied that the 1996 Community Reuse Plan was the last time we were involved
in that process. Member Matarrese informed staff and the Board that he just received a letter
from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regarding the remediation of site
where the Midway Shelter is located. The letter informed of DTSC's plan to evaluate the impact
of removing viscous material and widespread contaminated material from that site. Staff will
follow -up.
Chair Johnson called public speakers. Doug Biggs, Interim Executive Director of the APC spoke
in support of the city's recommendation. He discussed the homelessness crisis in today's
economy. Liz Varela, Executive Director of the BFWC, supports Doug Bigg's comments, and
appreciates the City's recommendation on the BFWC NOI and its efforts of relocating the
Midway Shelter.
Member deHaan asked staff to give a background on the remediation requirements and how the
Navy is going to address that. Ms. Potter explained that the south east corner of the North
Housing parcel, there is a plume which extends to that area and will be remediated. The Navy
has started remediation of the plume, and we made it clear when we put out the request that there
is an environmental issue. None of the proposals we received asked for property anywhere near
that site. There has been prior time - critical removal that has all been completed. Ms. Potter
added that there was no removal under hardscapes or roads, so anyone who will develop that site
has to take that in consideration.
Member Matarrese expressed concern that we should not move forward where uncalculated
liability for any unremediated land is passed on to any future to non - profit.
Member Matarrese motioned to provide direction that in the Community Reuse Plan and
in the negotiations of the LBA we include disclosure of significant liability of
uncharacterized contamination under hardscape and contamination beyond two feet, and
that we have these LBAs come back to ARRA. The motion was seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes — 5, Noes — 0, Abstentions — 0.
3 -B. Report on Restoration Advisory Board Comment Letter on Installation Restoration
Site 1.
Ms. Potter summarized that at the ARRA meeting on September 10, the Board received several
letters regarding Site 1. Staff was directed to work with the environmental consultant, Dr. Peter
Russell, to prepare a response to RAB letters. The ARRA's position is that land fill should be
dug up and hauled off, this position has been consistent during the public comment process,
which is not concluded. A final draft Record of Decision (ROD) is due on Oct. 28th, which will
give us further opportunity to provide comments on the final draft ROD. However, as all of this
work has been going on, the results of the additional trenching did not reveal waste, so the sense
is that there is no longer a landfill at Site 1. We would like to send a letter to the Navy
requesting they do a little more work to determine whether a land fill is still present at Site 1.
The Navy began remediation on groundwater contamination.
Member Matarrese reminded staff that the original concern expressed was, not that there was a
landfill, but that it was uncharacterized and unknown. He wants to make sure all contaminated
materials are removed, and inert ones remain in place. Ms. Potter stated that we must go through
the CERCLA process, and that the time - critical removal was for the material down to two feet.
Member Matarrese asked how Site 1 could be closed if there is still objectionable material there.
Ms. Potter responded by stating that the work `effort and investigation as part of IR Site 32 work
includes going further than two feet, and the moving of the materials allows the changing of the
boundaries of the IR sites and what they are studying. Member Matarrese would like a risk
assessment provided to the City with anticipated development in mind — to build a case for the
ultimate price tag for the property, i.e., if the property goes to auction, the contamination status
would affect the price.
There were two speakers on this item. James Leach, RAB member for 9 years, is there
voluntarily because they are experts and have done clean -up and provide oversight to a high
degree. George Humphreys, Co -Chair of the RAB, commented on Dr. Russell's evaluation of
the Site 1 issue.
Member Matarrese motioned to accept the report with future reports to include a risk
assessment of the significant issues being discussed from a technical standpoint. The
motion was seconded my Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes —
5, Noes — 0, Abstentions — 0.
Ms. Potter discussed two additional recommendations included in the staff report; first was the
request for authorization to request that the Navy further explore issue of whether there is still a
landfill, and second, that staff be given authorization to prepare and send a letter on the draft
final ROD. Since there is no opportunity to provide back to ARRA before it's sent, Member
Matarrese suggested it come back to the Board at a the second Council meeting in November
(November 18).
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the two additional recommendations, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes — 5, Noes — 0, Abstentions —
0.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
- Highlights of September 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow night and the minutes from the
last meeting have been presented.
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 was one speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan asked if there was an update on the GSA property behind Foster Freeze. Ms.
Potter informed him that staff will get and update and provide it to the City Manager as an Off -
Agenda item.
Member Matarrese stated that the Board has received a stack of documents from SunCal, but has
not seen a document that fits the description of a Business Plan. He requested that staff ask
SunCal for a business plan. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, affirmed Member
Matarrese's request.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
November 5, 2008
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
2 -C 1,a
SUBJ: Approve a Permanent Waiver of License Fees for Alameda Unified School
District Student Activities
BACKGROUND
For the past several years, Alameda High School has needed space in an available Alameda Point
building for the preparation of both its annual "Homecoming" float and Grad Night sets. If a
building is available, the request has been accommodated.
DISCUSSION
Since the High School regularly makes the request for the hangars and fee waivers, staff is
seeking approval of a permanent automatic waiver for both Homecoming and Grad Night
activities, if a building is available. The School District will provide the required insurance and
comply with all regulations when occupying Alameda Point building.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The license fee for this type of event is $1,000 per day. The average use for Homecoming is five
days, and the average use for Grad Night is approximately 150 days.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the waiver of the license fees for Alameda Unified School District student activities.
Re pec1 ully submitted,
Leslie Little
Development rvices Director
By: Nanette Ban s
Finance & Administration Manager
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
November 5, 2008
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
SUBJ: Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Building 43 &
Associates, Inc. at Alameda Point
BACKGROUND
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) governing Board approves all Alameda
Point subleases with a lease term greater than one year. The proposed sublease for Building 43 &
Associates, Inc. is for five years.
DISCUSSION
Attachment A describes the business terms for the proposed sublease for Building 43 & Associates,
Inc. in a portion of Building 43. The rent for Building 43 & Associates, Inc. is $23,820 annually, or
$0.3803 per sq. ft. in the first year. There is a 3% increase each year in the subsequent years. The
building will continue to be used for light manufacturing and office. Building 43 is in poor to fair
condition.
In accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the ARRA and SunCal
Companies, this lease has been discussed with representatives from SunCal Companies and has their
concurrence.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION / FINANCIAL IMPACT
This lease will generate $23,820 in the first year. These funds will be retained by the ARRA.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize negotiation and execution of a sublease for Building 43 & Associates, Inc. at Alameda
Point.
Honorable Chair and Members of the November 5, 2008
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2
By:
Respectfully submitted,
}
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
Nanette Banks
Finance & Administration Manager
Attachment: A. Proposed Sublease Business Terms
B. Site Map
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS
TENANT
BUILDING
SIZE (SF)
TERM
RENT
Building 43 &
Associates, Inc.
43
5,220
5 yrs
$1,985/mo.
1 1 1
ATTACHMENT B
MONARCH ST,
end )\dMGIW M
L
1
10.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
Date: November 18, 2008
Re: Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to Agreement with
Russell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point
Extending the Term for 12 Months and Adding $147,500 to the Budget
BACKGROUND
Russell Resources provides environmental consulting services including reviewing, analyzing, and
preparing comments on Navy environmental documents for the clean up of the Alameda Naval Air
Station (Alameda Point) on behalf of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA).
Russell Resources attends meetings with State and Federal environmental regulators and the Navy
and provides professional expertise to ARRA staff to allow full participation in the clean -up
decisions made by the Navy. Over the past ten months, Russell Resources has assisted staff in
evaluating SunCal's Development Concept to determine land use compatibility with clean -up goals
and construction and project phasing relative to the Navy's clean up schedule. Russell Resources
also provides peer review and coordination with SunCal's environmental consultant.
Most recently, the ARRA Board requested that Russell Resources prepare a technical memorandum
evaluating two letters prepared by members of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) and submitted
to the ARRA for its consideration. In addition, the ARRA requested that Russell Resources prepare
a summary and analysis of actions taken at monthly RAB meetings; RAB summary /analysis was
prepared for the September and October RAB meetings. These additional work activities were not
budgeted as part of Russell Resources annual contract. As a result, budgeted funds have been
expended earlier than the contract' s expiration on December 31, 2008. Therefore, an amendment to
the existing agreement has been prepared and is attached for ARRA consideration. The amendment
extends the term of the agreement for 12 months to December 31, 2009, and adds $147,500 to the
budget, for a total contract amount of $265,000.
DISCUSSION
In 2004, a limited Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued for environmental consulting services at
Alameda Point to determine if an additional environmental firm should be retained to augment
Russell Resources, or if a new firm should be retained to replace Russell Resources. Three firms
were interviewed as part of that process. An evaluation team met with Levine Fricke, Environmental
Resources Management West, and CH2M Hill. Following those interviews and a review of the
proposals received, the evaluation team determined that no additional services were necessary and
that the ARRA should continue to engage Russell Resources.
Honorable Chair and Members of the November 18, 2008
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 3
As part of evaluating environmental services in 2007, staff conducted an informal solicitation,
contacting two environmental consulting firms, Erler & Kalinowski and GeoMatrix, to determine if
Russell Resources' expertise and cost were comparable to that of other firms. With these
comparisons and given Russell Resources' expertise, familiarity with Alameda Point, and
competitive billing rate, the ARRA Board approved an agreement to retain Russell Resources.
The 2004 limited RFP process and 2007 informal solicitation revealed several important issues
relative to retaining environmental services for Alameda Point. The first is that very few Bay Area
environmental firms are consultants only. Most environmental firms conduct clean up, and make
most of their money on environmental remediation activities. A consultant who does not directly
benefit from clean up activity has less opportunity for conflicts of interest when advising ARRA on
its best course of action regarding environmental remediation at Alameda Point. Russell Resources
serves strictly in a consulting capacity. The five firms evaluated in 2004 and 2007 all engage in
clean up work as a major component of their business.
Also, Russell Resources' billing rates and expertise were comparable to all firms interviewed.
Russell Resources has the additional advantage of familiarity with Alameda Point's environmental
challenges. This knowledge is an important asset to SunCal and its environmental consultant who
are working to gain knowledge on very complex environmental issues. It is important that ARRA's
consultant have full knowledge and history of issues at Alameda Point to interact effectively with the
Navy, RAB, and environmental regulators, SunCal, and the ARRA Board and staff on key
environmental concerns.
It is recommended that the Russell Resources contract be amended to extend the term for 12 months,
adding $147,500 to the budget for a total of $265,000. The amended agreement would expire on
December 31, 2009. The proposed amendment provides that, over the next 12 months, Russell
Resources will support discussions with the Navy related to the conveyance of Alameda Point and
will provide technical support to staff regarding current and future environmental remediation. In
addition, Russell Resources will continue to attend all Base Closure Team and RAB meetings, attend
meetings in furtherance of conveyance between and among ARRA, the Navy, and SunCal
Companies, and attend other technical meetings that may be necessary to support conveyance of
Alameda Point. Russell Resources will also review, and prepare draft comments on, technical
environmental documents published by the Navy, along with reports and work plans, in support of
the successful transfer and redevelopment of Alameda Point. Finally, Russell Resources will prepare
a summary /analysis of actions taken at monthly RAB meetings for the ARRA's review and
information.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds for Alameda Point environmental services are provided as part of the cost recovery provisions
included in the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SunCal Companies. Approval of this
agreement does not impact the City's General Fund, Community Improvement Commission (CIC),
or ARRA Budgets.
Honorable Chair and Members of the November 18, 2008
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 of 3
RECOMIV)ENDATION
Authorize the Executive Director to execute an amendment to agreement with Russell Resources for
environmental consulting services for Alameda Point extending the term for 12 months and adding
$147,500 to the budget.
Res •ect,± ly s »5 bitted,
slie Little
Development Services Director
By: D tae P
Base Reuse and Community Development
Manager
Attachment: Amendment to Agreement
ATTACHMENT 1
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This Amendment of the Agreement, entered into this day of November 2008, 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 January 2, 2008 an agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and
Consultant (hereinafter "Agreement ").
B. ARRA and Consultant 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 2nd day of January 2008, and shall
terminate on the 31st day of December 2009, 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 Exhibits "A" and "A -1" 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 $117,500.00 as set forth in Exhibit "A" and in the amount not to exceed
$147,500.00 as set forth in Exhibit "A -1" which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference."
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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be
executed on the day and year first above written.
RUSSELL RESOURCES, INC. ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
.e /Gy /(j
By. C-162 / SSE�G.
Title: 6571,6-- r
Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Russell Resources. Inc.
November 2008 Page I of 2
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
" 2
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
��
Debbie Potter, Manager
Base Reuse & Community Development
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Donna Mooney
Assistant General Counsel
Russell Resources, Inc.
November 2008
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit A -1
Scope of Work for Russell Resources, Inc.
November 2008 Through December 2009 (14 months)
Task 1: Attend Regularly Scheduled BRAC Meetings: Base Closure Team (BCT),
Remedial Advisory Board (RAB), and Proposed Plan Public Meetings
(preparation, meeting attendance, and documentation of meeting). Estimate 13
BCT meetings, 13 RAB meetings, and 5 Proposed Plan public meetings.
Budget: $30,800 (assumes average cost is $1,200 per BCT meeting, $900 per
RAB meeting, and $700 per Proposed Plan public meeting)
Task 2: Attend Meetings in Furtherance of Conveyance between and among
ARRA, Navy, and Master Developer. Estimate 10 meetings.
Budget: $9,000 (assumes average cost is $900 per meeting)
Task 3: Attend Meetings with Environmental Regulators and technical
supplemental meetings (preparation, meeting attendance, and documentation of
meeting). Estimate 15 meetings.
Budget: $16,500 (assumes average cost is $1,100 per meeting)
Task 4: Review of Technical Documents, including reports, workplans, and
environmental regulators' comments on same, and preparation of draft ARRA
comments on selected of these documents. Estimate 61 documents.
Budget: $49,400 (assumes 40 documents perused at $200 each, 15
documents reviewed at $1,600 each, and 6 documents reviewed and commented
upon at $2,900 each)
Task 5: Reporting on RAB Meetings, including technical evaluation of important
issues that come before the RAB. This reporting is for the ARRA Board.
Budget: $19,500 (assumes 13 RAB meeting reports at $1,500 each)
Task 6: Additional Consultation (at the request of ARRA) and contingency. The
ARRA must preauthorize these tasks.
Budget: $12,500 (approximately 10% of the budget for Tasks 1 -5)
Page 1 of 2
Task 7: Project Management, Including email, phone, other correspondence, cost
accounting, invoicing, coordination, etc.
Budget: $9,800 (assume $700 per month for 14 months)
Total 2008 Budget: $147,500
Page 2 of 2
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
November 18, 2008
2-BI
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
SUBJ: Approve a One -year Lease with Two One -year Options with Makani
Power for a Portion of Hangar 12
BACKGROUND
At its October 2006 meeting, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approved
a two -year option lease with three one -year options with Makani Power for $242,640
annually, ($1.15 per sq foot) for Building 19. The lease also includes the use of an
adjacent shed at $0.35 per sq foot. Makani Power is an alternative energy company that
uses Building 19 and the associated shed for office and some light manufacturing of their
product. Makani asked for and received $150,000 for qualified shell improvements to
ensure the building remains safe from water intrusion, enabling them to comply with the
maintenance service requirements of the Pease. Building 19, the former airport control
tower, is in good condition.
DISCUSSION
Makani is requesting to expand its lease to include a portion of Hangar 12, which is the
last of the hangars at Alameda Point not currently under lease. It has been used for many
things in the past, including filming of features and commercials. Initially Makani will
use and pay for one - quarter of the building and grow into the remainder of the building
over the next few years. The proposed rent is $0.40 per sq foot, or $96,000 annually.
One issue concerning this potential use is the future of filming at Alameda Point. The
Film Commission has voiced its concern over leasing potential filming locations and
support for reserving hangar space, particularly, Hangar 12. If Makani is allowed to use
this space, there no longer will be hangar space available to lease for filming.
Filming has occurred sporadically at Alameda Point in the past. The most recent film
shot in the hangars was Pursuit of Happyness in 2005. There have been no recent
inquiries for filming, other than still photos, since 2005.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Makani lease will provide new revenue to the ARRA, not included in the lease
revenue projection for fiscal year 2008 -09. In addition, Makani represents potential real
Honorable Chair and Members of the November 18, 2008
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 2
growth in related or spin -off alternative energy businesses that the company is fostering.
The annual revenue to the ARRA will be $96,000 initially, with annual 3% increases.
Combined revenue from the Makani leases will total $338,640. Makani will not be
entitled to utilize more than the 20,000 sq. ft. leased. If additional tenants for the building
come forward, the ARRA could lease the balance of the space. Makani has no right to
affect the leasing of the balance of the space.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a one -year lease with two one -year options with Makani Power for a portion of
Hangar 12.
Attachments: Map of Building 12
Respectfully submitte
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
By: Nanette Banks
Finance & Administration Manager
J
5
J
J
0 ED
I
ATTACHMENT A
ro
MONARCH ST,
•
\\\\\
,
\\'"\\ '.'•/
C-1
CJ
q),
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: November 5, 2008
3-Al 1
Re: Alameda Point Update — Review and Comment on SunCal's September 19,
2008 Development Concept
BACKGROUND
In July 2007, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), Community
Improvement Commission (CIC), and City (together Alameda) entered into an Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with SCC Alameda Point LLC (SunCal) to secure the required
land use entitlements to redevelop Alameda Point. The ENA identifies a number of mandatory
performance milestones necessary to complete the entitlement process during the ENA term,
including the preparation of a Development Concept. SunCal submitted this document, along
with a draft Business Plan, draft Sports Complex Master Plan Update, and Infrastructure Plan, on
September 19, 2008. Alameda issued a press release notifying the public that the documents
were received and were available for review on -line at www.alameda - point.com and at the
Alameda Free Library. The September 19 submittal was also provided to the ARRA Board at
that time.
In addition to making the documents available to the public, SunCal presented its Development
Concept to eight boards and commissions during the month of October. Both Alameda and
SunCal advertised these meetings. Staff also completed its preliminary review of the
Development Concept. The November 5 ARRA meeting is an opportunity for the ARRA to
provide feedback on the Development Concept and to review and comment on input received
from the boards and commissions. No action is required.
Following the ARRA meeting, SunCal will evaluate all of the comments received and prepare its
draft Master Plan, final Sports Complex Master Plan Update, and final Business Plan.
Completion of these documents is a mandatory milestone under the ENA. The draft master plan
and related documents are due to Alameda on December 19, 2008.
DISCUSSION
The following is a summary of the comments received from the boards and commissions.
Historical Advisory Board — October 2, 2008
Staff requested that the Historical Advisory Board review and comment
preservation and adaptive reuse components of the Development Concept.
comments were transmitted from the public or individual board members:
November 5, 2008
Page 2 of 7
on the historic
The following
• Support was expressed for SunCal's decision to preserve the Bachelors Officers Quarters
and the "Big Whites ".
• Concerns were expressed about the loss of four of the five Seaplane Hangers; Building 8,
which is in the "Shops Area "; Building 19 (the Control Tower Building); and the small
boathouse (Building 15).
• Demolition of buildings in later phasds should be delayed as long as possible or until
such time that the development of that phase is ready to move forward to provide
additional time for market conditions to adjust. Such delay of demolition might provide
new opportunities to feasibly reuse buildings.
• A "range of building types" should be preserved at Alameda Point.
• There was a discussion about the implications of a future National Register Nomination
for the Historic District if large portions of the District were to be removed by the
development.
Library Board - October 8, 2008
The Library Board provided comments and direction regarding the need for library services and
facilities at Alameda Point to serve the Alameda Point development and/or the west end of
Alameda. Specifically, the Board stated that:
• There was a documented need for library facilities within the west end of Alameda.
• Approximately 15,500 square feet would be needed for a new library that could also
accommodate a literacy program for west end residents.
• The facility should be located adjacent to the neighborhoods and other civic uses.
• There might be opportunities to do a "joint use" library facility with the proposed school
at Alameda Point.
• Reuse of one of the historic buildings might be possible, but the technological
requirements for a modern library may make adaptive reuse of an historic building cost
prohibitive relative to building a new library.
Recreation and Park Commission - October 9, 2008
This meeting provided an opportunity for the Recreation and Park Commission and the
community to focus on the open space and recreational proposals in the Development Concept
and the draft Sports Complex Master Plan Update. The Commission provided the following
comments:
• The plans for the Sports Complex and the open space and parks were well received by the
Recreation and Park Commission, with several members expressing positive reactions to
the proposed plans.
• Given the weather conditions at Alameda Point, consideration should be given to
enclosing all or portions of the swim center within the Sports Complex.
November 5, 2008
Page 3 of 7
• There should also be serious consideration given to strategies that create energy efficient
buildings. For example, the swim center will require large amounts of energy. Solar
panels or other clean energy strategies should be considered to reduce the carbon
footprint of the facility.
■ The Sports Complex should include a stage or similar facility or structure that could be
used for individual or group "performance" sports such as cheerleading.
■ There might be opportunities and cost benefits to co- locating the proposed school sites
with the proposed open spaces.
• Drought tolerant and "bay friendly" landscaping should be used to the maximum extent
possible in all the open space and park facilities.
• Open spaces, parks, and the Sports Complex should be phased in with each phase of the
development, beginning with the first phase.
Housing Commission - October 15, 2008
At this meeting, staff requested that the Housing Commission review and comment on the
housing proposals and strategies. The Commission made the following comments:
• The plans for a diversity of housing types and affordability levels were well received by
the Commission, with several members expressing positive reactions to the housing
proposals and the Development Concept as a whole.
• Drought tolerant and "bay friendly" landscaping should be used to the maximum extent
possible throughout the plan area.
• The paragraph in the introduction of the Development Concept that talks about
"skyrocketing housing prices" in the Bay Area should be updated to reflect current
economic conditions.
■ The scale and location of the commercial buildings proposed along Main Street should be
carefully considered to ensure compatibility with existing developments across Main
Street, which include a Housing Authority property.
• The Housing Commission is willing and available to provide additional comments and
suggestions as the plans become more definitive and more detailed regarding housing
types, the location of affordable housing, and the juxtaposition of new and existing
development.
Economic Development Commission - October 16, 2008
Staff requested that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) review and comment on the
economic development, jobs, and commercial development proposals in the Development
Concept Plan. The EDC provided the following feedback:
• Commissioners expressed concern about focusing on a large single user for commercial
space and the project's financial vulnerability in the event such a user would close its
campus.
■ SunCal was encouraged to plan carefully for the mix of uses and ensure that the range of
uses was well integrated (e.g., children at play, retail traffic, residential neighborhoods,
commercial activity, etc.)
• Commissioners noted that analysis of historic preservation /adaptive reuse costs would be
very important to understanding overall project feasibility.
November 5, 2008
Page 4 of 7
• The Development Concept assumes one job for 300 square feet of commercial
development. What is Alameda's existing jobs per square foot ratio?
• Are there examples of projects, developed by SunCal or other developers, which
document changed behavior regarding use of public transportation, improved ridership,
etc.?
Transportation Commission - October 22, 2008
The purpose of the meeting was to focus community discussion and evaluation on the
transportation strategies proposed to support the land use plan. The Transportation Commission
had the following comments:
• The Commissioners expressed their general support for the overall content and direction
of the transportation strategy and its focus on proven technologies; such as Bus Rapid
Transit, shuttles, Car Share and other well known transportation alternatives. They
appreciated SunCal's willingness to innovate, listen to the community, and adjust its
plans accordingly to address Alameda's priorities and suggestions. Commissioners
agreed with SunCal's decision to de- emphasize Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) in the
Development Concept.
• Since the transportation program is very conceptual, it is difficult to fully understand or
quantify the impact of the land use plan on the transportation network, specifically the
Tubes. It will be very important for SunCal to provide more details about each
component of the program, the costs and ridership benefits of each component, and the
overall traffic impact or benefit of each phase of the transportation strategy so that
Alameda will have a clear understanding of the full benefits and potential impacts on the
Tubes of the proposed development program.
• The Commissioners expressed their appreciation for "Day One" transportation strategies
that are in place when the first houses and businesses are occupied, and encouraged
SunCal to fully develop a comprehensive and detailed "Day One" transportation program
to attract "transit minded" residents and businesses to Alameda Point.
• One -way streets may not be appropriate at Alameda Point.
• The school may be needed in Phase 1 since the Ruby Bridges School is already at
capacity.
• A reexamination of the benefits of AC Transit Route 63 is warranted, and there may be
benefits to changing that route to make more efficient use of transit investments by AC
Transit and SunCal.
• Locating a transit stop at the oval at the Atlantic Entrance to the site may be problematic
if it necessitates a "split" station.
• Serious consideration should be given to market rate pricing for the Ferry Terminal
parking lot to maintain an 85% occupancy rate.
• The parking ratios for commercial development need to be carefully considered to
provide incentives and support for alternatives to the automobile.
• There is a need for better coordination between the ARUP Estuary Crossing Study and
the SunCal transportation plans.
• The West Alameda Business Association needs to be included in future transit routing
discussions.
November 5, 2008
Page 5 of 7
• More work is needed to define and clarify which transit services in addition to the shuttle
could be accessed with the "Eco- Pass ".
• For comparative purposes, the Santa Clara corridor would be a good example of a higher
density area in Alameda with excellent transit services that might reflect the density and
transit services being proposed at Alameda Point. To inform the community, it may be
beneficial to examine the transit ridership characteristics of these existing Alameda
residents to determine the transit ridership characteristics that might be expected at
Alameda Point with similar densities and transit services.
• There should be an analysis of the projected ridership of the proposed BRT system to
determine whether the ridership would justify the costs. If the analysis shows that
ridership might be low, then SunCal and Alameda should consider other ways to spend
transportation funds.
■ SunCal and the community should be very clear about both the transportation benefits
and potential impacts of the proposed development so that all Alameda residents
understand what is being proposed and the implications of the project on the daily
commute from the west end of Alameda.
Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) — October 23, 2008
The SSHRB meeting provided an opportunity to comment on services to low- income residents,
including housing, transit, childcare, and recreational facilities. Board members had the
following comments:
• Support was expressed for the 25% affordable housing obligation. If homeowners
association costs or special assessments are required as part of the development, these
fees should be considered when determining the affordability of units.
• Further consideration should be given to the balance of rental and ownership affordable
units. Attention should be paid to the number of units accessible for people with
disabilities.
• Consideration of grocery facilities should include an analysis of their affordability for
low- income people.
■ The Development Concept appears to address transit needs identified in the Board's
Community Needs Assessment. Attempts to locate units within five minutes of transit
should consider the walking speeds of seniors and people with disabilities.
• The Eco -Pass should incorporate a sliding scale for low - income residents and people with
disabilities.
• There is a need to ensure first source hiring applies to all new employers who occupy the
Point. Phasing plans should consider job training and placement programs needed to help
meet first source hiring goals.
• A consultant should be hired to faoilitate a planning process between SunCal and
Alameda Point Collaborative that ensures the relocation of residents from Alameda Point
Collaborative, Bessie Coleman Court, and Operation Dignity causes as little disruption as
possible and prevents displacement.
■ Public spaces should accommodate the needs of people with disabilities by providing
benches, smooth and level walking paths, and picnic tables that are wheel chair
accessible.
November 5, 2008
Page 6 of 7
■ The Sports Complex should include disability friendly facilities, similar to the Miracle
League ball field proposed for the North Housing Parcel.
• There is a need to ensure that west end social service resources are maintained, including
the strong collaboration between the Alameda Food Bank, the Alameda Point
Collaborative, and American Red Cross - Alameda Service Center.
■ As more details become available, there is a need to compare the Social Service Human
Relations Board's Community Needs Assessment to the plan.
Planning Board - October 27, 2008
The Planning Board meeting provided an opportunity for the Board and the community to review
and comment on the land use planning, design, and sustainability aspects of the Concept. The
Planning Board made the following comments:
• The Development Concept is a good conceptual plan for Alameda Point and is well done.
• The Development Concept should include design principles about the importance of
waterfront design to create a vital, safe, and pedestrian friendly waterfront.
• The Development Concept does a good job of addressing the need for density and the
diversity of housing.
• The Development Concept sets very high expectations and SunCal needs to be careful
about setting expectations that may not be realistic. SunCal should not "over promise,
and under - deliver ".
• The phasing of the schools may need to be moved up earlier in the schedule to
accommodate growth in enrollment.
• There is a need for a library in the project.
• The analysis of civic facilities should consider a larger area than just Alameda Point. For
example, the College of Alameda has a track that is not always available to the
community. The Miller School site may be an appropriate location for a new school
serving the west end and Alameda Point, in addition to the current Island High facility.
■ Co- locating public facilities, such as libraries with schools, will increase the availability
of State grants.
• Given that the Sports Complex and the entire northern edge of the site will be in an area
that is not protected from floods and is adjacent to a shoreline that may fail in a major
disaster, the financial plan should include funds to rebuild public facilities that are
damaged in a flood or major disaster.
• The plan should include a phasing schedule for the adaptive reuse area that is coordinated
with the phasing for the rest of the project.
■ The open space needs to be provided with each phase of the development. The phasing
schedule should ensure that there is no net loss of playing fields for soccer leagues.
Phase 1 in particular should be carefully considered so that it provides adequate open
space.
• Development guidelines and standards are needed to ensure that the highest quality
development and a fine -grain mix of uses are provided at the site to the maximum extent
feasible.
• The street design and cross - sections, and the emphasis on narrow, calm streets, is very
positive. The project should not be constrained by outdated local standards such as the
1965 City Storm Drain Standards referenced in the Infrastructure Chapter.
November 5, 2008
Page 7 of 7
• Transportation is the biggest issue facing the redevelopment of Alameda Point. The
transportation strategy needs more details and more definition about when certain
improvements will be constructed and who will pay for them.
• The transportation strategy needs to be "front- loaded" with "Day One" improvements to
the maximum extent feasible.
• The BRT proposal could be controversial given what has occurred recently in Berkeley
and Oakland with AC Transit's BRT proposal.
• Regarding the phasing of the Ferry Terminal relocation, increasing the frequency of ferry
service from the Main Street Terminal in early phases may be more important than
relocating the terminal to the Seaplane Lagoon in the early phases.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to receiving board and commission comments on the Development
Concept or providing feedback on the plan.
RECOMMENDATION
This item is for review and comment on SunCal's Development Concept. No action is required.
Respect lly submitted,
es t
Development Services Director
By: Debbie Potter
Base Reuse and Community Development
Manager
Russell Resources, Inc. ITEM 4 -A
environmental management
Alameda Point RAB Meeting on October 2, 2008
Highlights, and Analysis
RAB members present: George Humphreys (co- chair), Fred Hoffman, Jim Leach, Dale Smith,
Jim Sweeney, Jean Sweeney, and Michael John Torrey
Remediation and other field work in progress:
• debris pile removal along north shore of Seaplane Lagoon
• removal of radiologically impacted storm drain inside Building 5
• expansion of petroleum remediation system near Atlantic Avenue entrance
• groundwater treatment at IR Site 14 (former fire training area in Northwest Territory) and
IR Site 26 (Western Hangar Zone)
• the petroleum remediation system at the southern end of the western hangar row is
operational and extracting from the ground much more leaked jet fuel than was expected
New RAB meetings: In an effort to prevent overly long RAB meetings, separate technical sub-
committee meetings will be held to discuss technical clean -up issues in greater detail. Both the
Navy and the environmental regulators will attend the technical sub - committee meetings. This
development should foster on -going informed RAB input on the Navy's clean -up plans.
The majority of the RAB meeting was devoted` to two topics: (1) IR Site 1 discussions at ARRA
Board meetings and (2) Navy clean -up achievements over the last 12 months. Completion of the
FOST (Finding of Suitability to Transfer) for PBC -1 (the Sports Complex site) was discussed
briefly, including mention of continuing petroleum cleanup there. Below, further details and
evaluation are presented on IR Site 1 and on the ramifications of petroleum residues at PBC -1.
IR Site 1(1943 -1956 Disposal Area)
Mr. Humphreys detailed the presentations on IR Site 1 at the ARRA Board's September 10 and
October 1, 2008, meetings. Dr. Russell then explained the evaluation of the RAB's comment
letters on the Proposed Plan for IR Site 1 and the Navy's exploratory trenching into the former
disposal area. Dr. Russell prepared the evaluation at the request of the ARRA Board.
The evaluation concerning IR Site 1 breaks new ground by questioning the popular assumption
that the site contains a landfill. The most significant points in the evaluation are as follows.
1. The RAB's comment letters are thorough and raise important concerns. The Navy is
incorporating many of the RAB's concerns in the remedial design for the landfill.
2. The results of the Navy's exploratory trenching into the former disposal area demonstrate
that the IR Site 1 landfill likely is no longer there. Virtually no landfilled waste was
found in the eleven trenches, which strongly suggests the landfill has been moved.
3. The landfill site should undergo further investigation before clean -up decisions are made.
Trenching and/or boring is needed to evaluate whether any of the landfilled wastes
RRI, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600
Page 2 of 5
October 22, 2008
Alameda Point RAB Meeting, October 2, 2008
Highlights and Analysis
remain, and, if so, their nature and extent. Sampling and analysis is needed to
characterize any chemical or radiological residues in the soil backfilled into the former
landfill. With a more accurate understanding of the landfill site, appropriate clean -up
alternatives can be identified. For example, the remaining contamination may be so
limited that excavation with off -site disposal becomes much more feasible; a smaller or
different type of cover may be more appropriate; or wetlands reuse may be possible.
4. The draft ROD (Record of Decision) for IR Site 1 should be finalized for those areas that
do not rely on the assumption that the site contains a landfill. Specifically, excavation and
off -site disposal of the shoreline burn area and cleanup of the groundwater contamination
should be conducted as soon as possible.
The new, no- landfill presumption likely will prolong remedial decisionmaking for portions of IR
Site 1, but it has several positive effects.
1. The new presumption breaks the impasse about whether intrusive sampling should be
done to characterize the landfill. The ARRA, the RAB, and others want the landfill site
characterized before making clean -up decisions. However, the BCT (Navy and the
environmental regulators) had tentatively agreed to install a soil cover over the landfill
site without further characterization. The BCT reasoned that heterogeneous landfills are
difficult to meaningfully characterize by sampling, and a soil cover likely would be
appropriate regardless of the sampling results. The BCT had not entertained the
possibility that the landfill is no longer present. Now, the compelling evidence from the
Navy's exploratory trenching demands that further intrusive investigation be conducted.
This work will evaluate whether any landfilled wastes remain and whether the backfilled
soil is contaminated. This information is fundamental to reasoned clean -up
decisionmaking.
2. The RAB had commented that groundwater should be cleaned up before earthmoving for
seismic stabilization of the shoreline is done. The Navy had wanted to conduct the
earthmoving first to avoid interfering with the many wells needed for groundwater
cleanup. If clean -up decisions for Area lb are delayed so that supplemental investigation
can be conducted, earthmoving along the shoreline will have to be postponed too.
However, groundwater remediation should move forward as expeditiously as possible
and likely will occur before earthmoving for shoreline stabilization.
3. If further investigation confirms the no- landfill presumption, the City of Alameda will
not have any potential liability associated with having a landfill on the land it receives
from the Navy.
PBC -1 FOST Background
PBC -1 is the site of the planned Sports Complex along the Oakland Inner Harbor shoreline, west
of the former base's north entrance. On September 30, 2008, the Navy issued the FOST for the
60 -acre PBC -1. The environmental regulatory agencies concur with this finding.
A FOST is a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) document that is the basis of the Navy's warrantee "that all remedial action
440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600
Page 3 of 5
October 22, 2008
Alameda Point RAB Meeting, October 2, 2008
Highlights and Analysis
necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any hazardous substance
remaining on the property has been taken before the date of transfer." However, petroleum
products are not "hazardous substances" as defined by CERCLA. Accordingly, cleanup of
petroleum contamination is not warranted to have been completed by the time of transfer. This is
the case with PBC -1.
Due to on -going cleanup of petroleum contamination on PBC -1, the FOST requires the deed to
contain a land use restriction protecting monitoring wells, and prohibiting deep excavation
without an SMP (site management plan) approved by the Navy and regulatory agencies. This
land use restriction is applicable to two areas of PBC -lthat are contaminated with petroleum -
AOC 23G and CAA -6. Together, these two areas account for about 15 percent of PBC -1, as
shown on the figure below from the FOST. The restrictions can be released once the Navy
obtains regulatory closure from the Water Board (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board), the responsible regulatory agency.
A ACC373
✓ Fmmar OWS 373
• GAP 37
PEG'
ti�N7 EES Pa co; Soundori
IR Sre Ea•ndxt
Instrrcna ComAIRas
Bourdon,.
CAA
r ADC 230
•st•g Scvacre
11.„1 Ron Cu :{...4 a Fc ,er GtJJCT.,
AOC Areaa'Co -can
CAA Cattcll.a ACtltSA 3
UMW. CMFC I•ke Er f,,r
"4424;r44. CGTF)e•&PXe, aM
UNSirp A]i
EEL EtsirosneS Bs.sns Su've}
GAL GEMx,ANE:ri,!'63Pdn2
IP. O{"NIXcn Rena,. ,
FEC kble IC rear,;
?M 'CJs Fetdtat n,stArn•
^£C 2 ID 222
Almada Pont Llaeneda. CA
V Y. AaTrsx vve OP/. Per] xe:t n: dtt4^2 .'..1
FIGURE 5
CERCLA AND PETROLEUM
PROGRAM SITES
Alas; 01 OuUbfly to TraioRr
9l Fut.:, Saxe Ctl453rna,
AOC 23G (Area of Concern 23G) is a former automotive gas station site in the north - central
portion of PBC -1. It occupies almost eight percent of the transfer parcel. The Navy has
concluded soil and groundwater at AOC 23G is clean enough for the intended reuse. The Water
Board concurs with this conclusion and plans to issue a closure letter, unless petroleum
contamination in groundwater rises above ecological risk thresholds during four more quarters of
monitoring. Thus, prohibitions against digging and damaging monitoring wells at AOC 23G
likely can be lifted by the end of 2009.
440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600
Page 4 of 5
October 22, 2008
Alameda Point RAB Meeting, October 2, 2008
Highlights and Analysis
CAA -6 (Corrective Action Area 6) is a 6 -acre former fuel transfer station for trucks servicing
aircraft on base. A portion of CAA -6 overlaps the south - central portion of PBC -1, occupying
about seven percent of the transfer parcel. The Navy has completed active cleanup of soil and
groundwater, but ecological risk thresholds still may not have been meet — further investigation
is needed of possible contaminant migration to Oakland Inner Harbor through the stomu drain
system. The Water Board is expected to grant regulatory closure of CAA -6 within five years.
Ramifications of Residual Petroleum Contamination on Reuse as the Sports Complex
The FOST's requirements (that monitoring wells be protected and that an SMP be used during
digging) are compatible with future use of PBC -1 as the Sports Complex. Known petroleum
residues are of ecological concern with respect to Oakland Inner Harbor but are too low to
present unacceptable human health risks with recreational use. According to SunCal's September
19, 2008 Alameda Point Redevelopment Concept Plan, AOC 23G will be used for parking, a
play area, a lawn area, and a BMX/mountain bike park. CAA -6 will be used for picnic areas,
basketball courts, and softball /baseball fields. These uses likely will require digging deeper than
six inches to install irrigation systems, storm drain lines, foundations for lighting and fences,
sub -base for pavement, etc.
Given SunCal's redevelopment schedule, AOC 23G and CAA -6 likely will be formally closed
by the Water Board and the digging and monitoring -well protection restrictions lifted before the
Sports Complex is built. But notwithstanding that, an SMP should be a requirement for the
reasons discussed below.
All of PBC -1 should be redeveloped using an SMP, even if the FOST does not require it. As with
most of Alameda Point, the possibility of unexpected contamination at PBC -1 cannot be ruled
out. Historical information about the Navy's activities at Alameda Point is incomplete: no
detailed records are available about historical uses of much of the base, for substantial periods.
Before environmental awareness became prevalent in the 1970s, chemical spills and
environmentally unacceptable practices were not documented. Even where suspected
contamination has been investigated, sampling might have missed small hot spots. For example,
if minor undetected leaks occurred, small areas of petroleum contamination might be found in
CAA -A, a fuel - pipeline corridor that crosses PBC -1 and for which the Water Board has granted
formal closure. (This area is the unlabeled yellow corridor in the figure above.) Although the
probability of unknown contamination in any particular spot is very low, one or more unexpected
hot spots likely will be encountered over the course of base redevelopment. Managing this type
of uncertainty is a primary goal of SMPs.
SMPs can be very valuable tools for redeveloping brownfields areas. They coordinate with
construction projects' customary health and safety plans to inform workers of the site history,
contaminants that potentially are present and their health effects, whom to notify if
contamination is encountered, and special procedures for handling contaminated soil and
groundwater. SMPs typically allow separate stockpiling of soil that apparently is contaminated
with substances associated with the site. This allows construction to continue while the
440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600
Page 5 of 5
October 22, 2008
Alameda Point RAB Meeting, October 2, 2008
Highlights and Analysis
disposition of the contaminated soil is managed on a separate timeline. If contamination were
encountered without an SMP, construction would stop while environmental regulators assess the
situation and direct further measures. SMPs often avoid such delays, which can impact
construction project schedules.
440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600
inspiriv;; p(f.! >ie to prated
ILtr :1Uen bird!, Siur.e 19!'
October 21, 2008
Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Committee
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Re: Draft Alameda Point Sports Complex Master Plan
Dear Ms. Debbie Potter and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Committee:
These comments are written on behalf of Golden Gate Audubon regarding the proposed Alameda
Point Sports Complex posted to the Alameda Point wcbsite dated September, 2009. Golden Gate
Audubon is dedicated to protecting Bay Area birds, other wildlife, and their natural habitats. We
conserve and restore wildlife habitats, connect people of all ages and backgrounds with the natural
world, and educate and engage Bay Area residents in the protection of our shared, local
environment.
For many years Golden Gate Audubon has been working to have 575 acres and 390 acres of
adjacent bay waters transferred from the U.S. Navy to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to
create the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge. Our efforts include seeking to achieve transfer of
the land from the U.S. Navy to the Fish & Wildlife Service to create the Alameda National
Wildlife Refuge, requiring appropriate cleanup of the refuge grounds for Least Tern nesting
season, maintaining the refuge as key nesting habitat for the California Least Tern and working
with USFWS to develop public access and education programs, once the national wildlife
refuge is established.
The proximity of the Alameda Point Sports Complex to the future Alameda National Wildlife
Refuge is of concern to us thus we are submitting the following comments:
1) The review of the Alameda Point Sports Complex document should be extended since the table
of contents refers to information starting on page 45 yet only 31 pages are accessible.
2) We recommend that bird watching signs or lookout points be designated along the EBRPD 7
mile Oakland Alameda Estuary shoreline trail.
3) The document should refer to the current Least Tern Biological Plan until the Management Plan
for the Least Tern is released (page 7, last paragraph).
4) Signage should include information on local,birds, other wildlife, and native plants (page 8, item
1 and page 11, item 3.4).
GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G Berkeley, California 94702
phone 510.843.2222 i x 510.843.5351 ueb www.goldengateaudubon.org
Re: Agenda Item #3 -A
Special ARRA Meeting
11 -18 -08
inspiring people in protect
Derr Area hind, since 191..
October 21, 2008
Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Committee
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Re: Draft Alameda Point Sports Complex Master Plan
Dear Ms. Debbie Potter and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Committee:
These comments are written on behalf of Golden Gate Audubon regarding the proposed Alameda
Point Sports Complex posted to the Alameda Point wcbsite dated September, 2009. Golden Gate
Audubon is dedicated to protecting Bay Area birds, other wildlife, and their natural habitats. We
conserve and restore wildlife habitats, connect people of all ages and backgrounds with the natural
world, and educate and engage Bay Area residents in the protection of our shared, local
environment.
For many years Golden Gate Audubon has been working to have 575 acres and 390 acres of
adjacent bay waters transferred from the U.S. Navy to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to
create the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge. Our efforts include seeking to achieve transfer of
the land from the U.S. Navy to the Fish & Wildlife Service to create the Alameda National
Wildlife Refuge, requiring appropriate cleanup of the refuge grounds for Least Tern nesting
season, maintaining the refuge as key nesting habitat for the California Least Tern and working
with USFWS to develop public access and education programs, once the national wildlife
refuge is established.
The proximity of the Alameda Point Sports Complex to the future Alameda National Wildlife
Refuge is of concern to us thus we are submitting the following comments:
1) The review of the Alameda Point Sports Complex document should be extended since the table
of contents refers to information starting on page 45 yet only 31 pages are accessible.
2) We recommend that bird watching signs or lookout points be designated along the EBRPD 7
mile Oakland Alameda Estuary shoreline trail.
3) The document should refer to the current Least Tern Biological Plan until the Management Plan
for the Least Tern is released (page 7, last paragraph).
4) Signage should include information on locaLbirds, other wildlife, and native plants (page 8, item
1 and page 11, item 3.4).
GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G Berkeley, California 94702
phone 510.843.2222 faY 510.843.5351 reb www.goldengateaudubon.org
Re: Agenda Item #3 -A
Special ARRA Meeting
11 -18 -08
tut:goring 1 e pie to protect.
iinr Area birds .dirt. 1'117
5) The framework design should include bird watching as it is a growing activity for people of all
ages (page 8, item 1.2).
6) All outside and exterior building lighting should be directed down to the areas that need to be lit
only. Motion detectors and the minimum wattage lights should be used to save natural resources,
money and to minimize the risk of bird structure or building collisions and improve the visibility of
the night sky (page 9 section 1.6, page 17 item 7.3, page 18 item 7.8, page 19 item 7.10, page 20,
item 8.3, page 21, item 8.10 -11, page 22 item 9.3, page 24 item 10.3, page 27 item 12.3, page 28
item 13.3, page 29 item 14.3, page 31 item 15.6).
7) Trash receptacles should be closed and regularly picked up to minimize wildlife and pest access
to human food (page 8 item 2.3, page 16 item 6.3, page 18 item 7.3, page 22 item 9.3, page 24 item
10.3, page 27 item 12.3, page 29 item 14.3).
8) Include bird watchers as expected users (page 14, item 5.6)
9) Parking areas should be permeable with vegetative swales (page 19, item 7.11)
10) There should be no parking next to the estuary where runoff would pollute the water (item 19).
11) There should be no BMX activity near the Estuary, if allowed it should be located next to the
parking lot furthest from any green space or waterway due to noise and pollution (See item 15).
12) There should be no synthetic turf.
13) Select native plants wherever possible (page 31, item 16).
Thank you for accepting these comments.
Best regards,
Noreen Weeden
510- 843 -2222
Golden Gate Audubon
Cc: Leora Feeney, Friends of Alameda Wildlife Refuge
GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G Berkeley, California 94702
phone 510.843.2222 f,x 510.843.5351 neb www.goldengateaudubon.org
(11/18 008) Lara Weisiger - Comments on SunCal's Redevelopment Concept Plan
From: Elizabeth Krase <ekrase @all2easy.net>
To: <athomas @ci.alameda.ca.us >, <dpotter @ci.alameda.ca.us >, <dkurita @ci.alam...
CC: Christopher Buckley <cbuckley @alamedanet.net>
Date: 11/17/2008 8:31 PM
Subject: Comments on SunCal's Redevelopment Concept Plan
Attachments: 2008- 9 -9AAPS RptToCtyCnclOn8- 7- 08AImdaPntWkshp.pdf
Greetings, Andrew, Debbie, and Debra,
At the November 5 ARRA meeting, speakers on agenda item 3A regarding
SunCal's Redevelopment Concept were variously told to send their comments to
Andrew or Debbie, as well as to the City Manager, so I sending these
comments to each of you.
I attach AAPS's letter dated Sept 9, in which we note that 65% of the tables
at the last community workshop said they wanted to see more preservation of
historic buildings at Alameda Point. We believe this strong statement in
favor of historic preservation has not been accurately reported by SunCal.
At the various presentations made by SunCal since September 9, a few new
issues have arisen which also need to be addressed by SunCal.
1. Page 9 of the Redevelopment Concept Plan illustrates areas that would be
inundated by an 182 sea level rise. This graphic clearly shows that a
number of historic buildings< for instance seaplane hangars 39, 40, and 11 &
12 (on each side of Building 400), the Air Terminal (Building 77- NAS
Museum), Shops Buildings 8 & 9, and the powerhouse (Building 10), are shown
as being ABOVE the sea level rise. Why isn't more of an effort being made
to retain and reuse these buildings?
2. What is the schedule for redevelopment of the northerly part of the base
(noted on the Redevelopment Concept presentations made by SunCal as
°Adaptive Reuse2 areas, covering the area of the main quad and BEQ, Big
Whites) in relation to the schedule for redevelopment of the rest of the
base?
3. For phases 2, 3, and 4 of the redevelopment plan, since all contain some
of the historic district/contributing buildings, we request delaying
demolition of the historic buildings for as long as possible because over
time and a changing economy, future reuses for these historic buildings may
be found.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Krase
(510) 286 -5612 (office)
(on behalf of AAPS)
$4.95/mo. National Dialup, Anti -Spam, Anti- Virus, 5mb personal web space. 5x faster dialup for only $9.95/mo. No contracts, No
fees, No Kidding! See http: / /www.A112Easy.net for more details!