The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-02-02 ARRA PacketAGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * * ** Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 391 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Wednesday, February 2, 2011 Meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY Anyone wishing to address the Board on 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. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8): Property: Footprint of Veterans Administration proposed federal entity to federal entity transfer at Alameda Point, and area known as Northwest Territories at Alameda Point (maps of the areas on file with ARRA Board secretary at City Hall, City Clerk's Office). Negotiating parties: Veterans Administration, US Navy, ARRA Under negotiation: Price and Terms Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 4. ADJOURNMENT Notes: • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 747 -4800 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. AGENDA 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, February 2, 2011 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 Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011. 2-B. Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Endorse "Going Forward" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment. 3-B. Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve Issuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Second Campus at Alameda Point. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative — Highlights of January 6, 2011 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 or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.) 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS None. ARRA Agenda- February 2, 2011 Page 2 7. REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 8. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 9. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. Notes: ■ Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 747 -4800 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, January 5, 2011 The meeting convened at 7:02 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Marie Gilmore Boardmember Lena Tam Boardmember Doug deHaan Boardmember Beverly Johnson Vice Chair Rob Bonta 2. CONSENT CALENDAR (11-001) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 2010. (*11.002) Approve a Waiver of License Fee, for Michaan's Auctions for Use of Portions of Building 20. Member deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-A of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by voice vote — 4, Abstentions — 1 (Bonta). Member deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-B of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 4. ORAL REPORTS (11-003) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of December 2, 2010 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. Member deHaan did not attend the December 2, 2010 RAB meeting and has no report. Member deHaan will attend the next RAB meeting on January 6, 2011 and will provide a report at the February ARRA meeting. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services will also attend the January 6th RAB meeting. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) There were no speakers. 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS (11-004) Mayor Gilmore asked the Deputy City Manager — Development Services to provide an update on the Lawrence Berkeley Lab (LBL) RFQ for a 2M square foot campus, with Alameda Point in consideration. The RFQ was sent out on January 3 and is due March 4th. Staff and a Agenda Item #2-A ARRA 2-2-2011 consultant team are working together to respond to the RFQ. Placeholders have been put on all Council /ARRA agendas before the March due date in case policy direction is needed. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services summarized the RFQ, stating that the initial phase is for 500,000 sq. ft. of space. Staff is working closely with the Navy (property owners) on policy issues that may need to be discussed with the Board. The short list will be in April. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services will discuss the developer solicitation process on the 18th in response to the RFQ, and before the short list. Other bases have been jump - started by large institutional user like LBL, it is a great catalyst and opportunity to get Alameda Point started. Member Johnson asked about the location and competitors. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services responded that the location was very specific: 20 — 25 minutes from blackberry gate; and that the biggest competitor is LBL's own property at Richmond Gild Station, 90 acres along the waterfront. The cities of Berkeley and Emeryville are also included. Member deHaan inquired if LBL is looking for land site or adaptive reuse. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services explained that since LBL needs state of the art R &D facilities, they want to find new construction. In initial conversations, the area that stands out is the area south of Atlantic. Construction would start in July 2013 in areas without cleanup issues. Chair Gilmore requested the RFQ be posted on the City's website so that the Board can access it and be prepared to get questions answered. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services stated that the Golden Gate Yacht Club and Oracle Racing announced that the America's Cup #34 will be held in San Francisco in 2013. In anticipation of the event, staff sent event organizers a letter reemphasizing the city's support for the San Francisco bid, and where Alameda can be helpful, i.e., host supportive services on Alameda Point for the America's Cup — hangars, ferries, potential economic benefit, strong marine industry, sailing syndicates, and being involved in the planning process. Member deHaan asked if the Board is taking the lead with regard to the community support efforts, or if there is a separate professional organization taking the lead. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services replied that it has been a cooperative effort — specific community members are involved in the maritime and sailing world and have the connections that staff doesn't. There are shared ideas and support. The City and staff lends credibility as a government entity to their interests. The Acting City Manager discussed the website which was developed by a community member who is connected to the sailing world and is leading the charge, working with the City for bigger mobilization in support of America's Cup #34. The business community wants to get involved, and a partnership of residents, business and the city could help bring some aspect of the event to Alameda. Member Bonta commented on the amazing efforts from the community, recognizing Jack Boeger and Bob Naber. Member Bonta stated that he looks forward to working with staff and the community to maximize this opportunity and realize the full potential economically and otherwise. Member Tam requested to be informed of any opportunities for the elected body to get involved. Chair Gilmore requested that updates of the event be placed as a regular item on the ARRA agenda. 7. REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY (11 -005) Referral from Chair Gilmore to change the order of the ARRA meetings. Member Johnson moved to approve the referral to change the order of the ARRA meetings. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. 8. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY (11 -006) Member Tam commented that with the emerging opportunities, the ARRA should focus on reshaping its Going Forward process and be more "shovel ready " — more prepared with property, parcels, and infrastructure to maximize its competitiveness at Alameda Point. Chair Gilmore requested a timeline of the Going Forward process so that the Board and the public can makes comments and any changes necessary. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services stated that an update will be presented at the 2/2 ARRA meeting, and the ARRA predevelopment budget would be presented at the 2/15 mid year budget adjustment. Member deHaan asked if staff has interfaced with the new owners of Catellus, TPG Capital LP. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services replied that the Economic Development Director and City Manager were getting up to speed with the new partner. A designated project manager is working with staff. TPG Capital will likely need to come to the Council /CIC because they are changing the development entity in agreement with the CIC. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services discussed that there will be a staff report, update, and presentation from the new partner in the next couple of months. Member deHaan inquired about the interview timeline for the Alameda Point RFQ consultants. The Deputy City Manager — Development Services explained that there were two days of interviews with four consultants: real estate economics, master planning, sustainable design and green infrastructure consultants, and transportation consultants. Contracts will be negotiated in January and will be brought back as part of the mid year budget adjustment to demonstrate to the ARRA how the project will be paid for. There are also plans to come back with community feedback in March. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Lisa Goldman Acting Executive Director Date: February 2, 2011 Re: Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings BACKGROUND At the January 5, 2011 regular Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) meeting, Chair Gilmore submitted a referral to change the order of items on the ARRA agenda. The ARRA Board agreed to change the order as suggested. DISCUSSION Oral Communications will be added after Roll Call to become Section 2 and will have a time limit of 15 minutes. Speakers not called under Section 2 will be called under a second section of Oral Communications, which will be Section 6. The new order of business will be as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Oral Communications, Non-Agenda (Public Comment) 3. Consent Calendar 4. Agenda Items 5. Oral Reports 6. Oral Communications, Non-Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Executive Director Communications 8. Referrals from the Governing Body 9. Communications from the Governing Body 10. Adjournment FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact from changing the order of agenda items. Agenda Item #2-B ARRA 2-2-2011 Honorable Chair and February 2, 2011 Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 49 SETTING THE ORDER OF BUSINESS OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETINGS WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Bylaws Section 3.06 give the said authority direction to adopt rules of order governing the proceedings and order of business of the Governing Body by resolution ; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 1995, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority adopted Resolution No. 001 establishing the Rules and Procedures for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority meetings; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 1995, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority adopted Resolution No. 10 amending Section 6 of the Rules and Procedures to set the Order of Business for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority meetings; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 2010, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority adopted Resolution No. 49, amending the Order of Business of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings to include `Executive Director Communications' and `Referrals from the Governing Body' as standard agenda items on the regular agenda; and WHEREAS, it is desired that the Order of Business be amended to include a section of Oral Communications after Roll Call in order to allow 15 minutes of public comment prior to action items; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority that said authority hereby amends Resolution No. 49 by amending the Order of Business to read as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 3. Consent Calendar 4. Agenda Items 5. Oral Reports 6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Executive Director Communications 8. Referrals from the Governing Body 9. Communications from the Governing Body 10. Adjournment I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Governing Board during the Regular Meeting of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority on the 2nd day of February, 2011, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said Authority this 3rd day of February, 2011. Irma Glidden, Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Lisa Goldman Acting Executive Director Date: February 2, 2011 Re: Endorse "Going Forward" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment BACKGROUND In January 1996, the City of Alameda and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) adopted the Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS Alameda) Community Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan), which established the following Vision Statement for the reuse of the former NAS Alameda: Between now and the year 2020, the City of Alameda will integrate the Naval Air Station property with the City and will realize a substantial part of the Base's potential. Revenues will have increased and a healthy local economy will have resulted from the implementation of a coordinated, environmentally sound plan of conversion and mixed -use development. While building upon the qualities, which make Alameda a desirable place to live, efforts for improving recreational, cultural, educational, housing, and employment opportunities for the entire region will have been successful. In 2000, the City amended the General Plan to entitle portions of the former NAS Alameda consistent with the Reuse Plan and to allow conveyance of the and and development to proceed on the portions of the base east of Main Street, currently known as Bayport and Alameda Landing. In 2003, the City amended the General Plan to address the redevelopment and reuse of the remainder of the former NAS Alameda, west of Main Street (Alameda Point). Since then, the ARRA entered into exclusive negotiation agreements (ENA) with two potential master developers to entitle and facilitate conveyance and development of Alameda Point. Neither master developer process resulted in the successful entitlement and development of the property. "Going Forward" Process In September 2010, staff initiated a City -led planning and community engagement strategy for "going forward" at Alameda Point. The purpose and intent of the "going forward" community engagement strategy is to identify and describe a community Agenda Item #3 -A ARRA 2 -2 -2011 Honorable Chair and February 2, 2011 Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 7 supported, financially feasible land use vision for Alameda Point. The vision will serve as the basis for a land use and entitlement plan and conveyance agreement with the United States Navy (Navy) for Alameda Point. Staff intends for the "going forward" process to be a two - tiered effort: 1. Vision and Project Description. The first tier of the Alameda Point planning process will be to build community support for a feasible vision for the redevelopment of Alameda Point, which serves as the basis for a project description sufficient to commence the state and federal environmental review process. [Estimated completion date: July 2011] 2. Plan Preparation and Entitlement Approvals. The second tier of the Alameda Point planning effort will be to complete the entitlement process and approvals necessary to commence the conveyance, disposition and development of land at Alameda Point based on the vision and project description developed as part of the first tier. [Estimated completion date: July 2013] To commence the community engagement strategy for the visioning process, staff prepared the Community Planning Workbook, which was provided to the ARRA at its December 1, 2010 meeting, and designed a series of community forums to engage the community in the process of learning from past efforts and creating a vision for Alameda Point. The workbook and the forums are designed to inform and facilitate a community discussion around a number of critically important development questions for Alameda Point. These questions are designed to highlight and focus community discussion on trade -offs that may be necessary to achieve financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality. The topics highlighted in the community workbook include: 1. Land Use — What is the appropriate mix of recreational, cultural, educational, housing, service, and employment uses at Alameda Point? 2. Building Types and Neighborhood Character — What should new buildings and neighborhoods in Alameda Point look and feel like? 3. Parks and Open Space — How should parks and open space be designed to improve the lives of all Alameda residents? 4. Historic Character, Preservation, and Adaptive Reuse — How should we honor and preserve the history of the former Naval Air Station? 5. Transportation and Access — How should people travel to and from Alameda Point? 6. Community Benefits — Which community benefits are the most important? Honorable Chair and February 2, 2011 Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 of 7 Fall 2010 Forums The City held three community workshops in the fall of 2010. The content and materials presented at the workshops at three different locations throughout the city (i.e., East, Central and West Alameda) was identical. This format allowed residents, business owners, and other interested stakeholders from different neighborhoods to provide ideas and feedback on lessons learned and suggest new ideas for Alameda Point. The workshops occurred on: • November 9, 2010 — East Alameda - Bay Farm Island - Grand Pavilion • November 18, 2010 — Central Alameda - Mastick Senior Center • December 8, 2010 — West Alameda — The O'Club The forums were well attended (approximately 50 -100 participants at each forum), and discussions were animated. An online interactive workbook was also made available at www .alamedapoint- qoinqforward.com through January 31, 2011. Additionally, staff will hold an Alameda Point Tenant Forum on February 8, 2011. DISCUSSION Going forward with a City -led entitlement effort for Alameda Point redevelopment will allow the community to determine its own vision and development standards for Alameda Point before partnering with a private developer or developers. As a result, the City and community have a stronger voice and greater control over the planning process, and future development partners face less entitlement risk and gain greater certainty regarding development potential and investment return. The greatest challenge to a City -led entitlement effort will be to fund the technical studies, workshops, and efforts that will be necessary at each stage of the two- tiered process. Staff will present a budget for the Vision and Project Description process for approval to the ARRA at the February 15, 2011, special ARRA meeting, along with a preliminary budget for the entire two -year Plan Preparation and Entitlement Approvals process. The final proposed budget for the first year of the Plan Preparation and Entitlement Approvals process will be presented and recommended for approval as part of the FY11 -12 budget process. City staff is also seeking grant funds from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $750,000 and the Department of Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment for $200,000 to help fund this predevelopment process. The key aspects of the first tier of the City -led Vision and Project Description effort over the next six months are as follows: • Master Planning. An inter - departmental staff team will be leading a team of key consultants (i.e., land use planning, real estate economics, civil engineering, Honorable Chair and February 2, 2011 Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4 of 7 sustainability planning, transportation, and environmental), which will comprise the Alameda Point Resource Team. This Team will prepare and evaluate development alternatives for Alameda Point, according to financial /fiscal, transportation and environmental sustainability criteria, and based on ongoing community feedback and technical analysis, propose a vision concept and project alternatives for acceptance by the ARRA in July 2011. As described above, this project description will serve as the basis for commencing both state and federal environmental review. • Long -Term Leasing Strategy. Concurrently, staff will develop a strategic policy framework for allowing appropriate, long -term uses and tenants at Alameda Point. The master planning effort will inform the development of this strategy. The strategy will discuss geographic, tenant and performance criteria for allowing more long -term leases at Alameda Point and is expected to evolve as the plan for Alameda Point evolves over time. • Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Second Campus. The Alameda Point Resource Team will respond to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a location for its Second Campus at Alameda Point. If successful, this planning process will inform the master planning effort for Alameda Point. • Land Conveyance Transactions. Staff will continue to engage the Navy and Statelands Commission in discussions regarding a conveyance agreement and Statelands Exchange Agreement, respectively. Initial discussions over the next six months will also potentially influence the vision prepared for Alameda Point. • Other Related Planning Efforts. Staff will be closely coordinating its master planning effort with other inter - related planning efforts, including the current effort to evaluate preliminary traffic assessments of transportation options for Alameda Point funded through a grant from the Federal Transit Administration; Alameda Point Collaborative's community planning process regarding the potential consolidation of its existing facilities into new improved facilities; the City's Urban Greening Plan, which will assist in the master planning of regional parks and urban farms at Alameda Point; and the Department of Veteran's Affairs proposed outpatient clinic and columbarium adjacent to the ARRA's proposed project. The following provides a detailed schedule and description of next steps for the "going forward" process. January 2411 • Commence staff discussions on long -term leasing strategy for Alameda Point • Commence engagement of City Boards and Commissions in visioning process Honorable Chair and February 2, 2011 Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 5 of 7 — Restoration Advisory Board -- January 6th — Economic Development Commission -- January 20th — Planning Board -- January 24th • Close comment period on Community Planning Workbook — January 31st • Hold site tour and meeting with staff from the State Lands Commission — January 31st February 2011 • Request endorsement from ARRA on "going forward" process — February 2nd • Hold Alameda Point Tenant Forum — February 8th • Continue engagement of City Boards and Commissions — Historical Advisory Board -- February 3rd — Recreation and Park Commission -- February 10th — Transportation Commission -- February 23rd • Seek approval from ARRA on Vision and Project Description budget through July 2011 — February 15th • Finalize contracts for Alameda Point Resource Team, including for transportation, sustainability, real estate economics, and master planning consultant — February 15th • Prepare a Summary Report of the community feedback received from the community forums, online workbooks, Boards and Commission meetings, and Alameda Point Tenant Forum • Submit a Strategic Area Planning Grant application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $750,000 to assist ARRA in the funding of the Plan Preparation and Entitlement Approvals process March 2011 • Present Summary Report of community feedback to the ARRA — March 2nd • Hold "market testing" interviews with development community Honorable Chair and February 2, 2011 Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 6 of 7 • Prepare and evaluate development alternatives according to land use, financial, fiscal, environmental, and transportation criteria April /May 2011 • Hold workshops on sustainability topics: environmental, transportation and financial /fiscal sustainability issues • Present development alternatives to the ARRA — April 6th • Discuss long -term leasing strategy with the ARRA — April 6th • Receive response from MTC on Strategic Area Planning Grant • Continue evaluation of development alternatives and discuss preferred alternative • Conduct ongoing stakeholder interviews and discussions with community, Boards and Commissions and ARRA regarding alternatives June /July 2011 • Prepare MTC funding agreements, if grant is awarded to ARRA • Prepare draft document for a preferred vision concept, including discussion of other potential alternatives • Prepare draft project description and alternatives sufficient for commencement of state and federal environmental review process • Finalize long -term leasing strategy • Recommend approval of the budget for the Plan Preparation and Entitlement Approvals process for FY11 -12 • Recommend acceptance of the preferred vision concept, project description, and long -term leasing strategy to the ARRA • Commence environmental review process July 2011 — July 2013 • Continue community engagement process for preparation of plans and entitlement approvals and continue discussions of alternatives and trade -offs Honorable Chair and February 2, 2011 Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 7 of 7 • Complete environmental review process • Complete property transfer and land exchange agreements with Navy and State Lands Commission • Complete preparation and approval of Entitlement Approvals including Alameda Point Specific Plan and Master Infrastructure Plan Staff recommends endorsing this City -led predevelopment process and schedule for redevelopment of Alameda Point. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The budget for the Vision and Project Description process will be presented and recommended for approval to the ARRA at the February 15, 2011 special ARRA meeting, along with a preliminary budget for the entire two -year Entitlement Approvals process. The final proposed budget for the first year of the Entitlement Approvals process will be presented and recommended for approval as part of the FY11 -12 budget process. City staff is also seeking grant funds from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $750,000 and the Department of Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment for $200,000 to help fund this predevelopment process. RECOMMENDATION Endorse the "Going Forward" process and schedule for Alameda Point redevelopment. p;-ctfully submitted, Je nif r tt Deput City Manager JO /di EXTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE The City Clerk's Office received the attached external correspondence on 2 -2 -11 regarding Agenda Item #3 -A on the 2 -2 -11 Regular ARRA Agenda GREENBE TA ANCE li r 1 February 2, 2011. Alameda City Council City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mayor Gilmore and Council members, Greenbelt Alliance has a strong interest in the proposed redevelopment of Alameda Point as this site is one of a precious few locations that could significantly help the Bay Area become a region with shorter commutes and demonstrate the economic and social benefits of putting people closer to work, school and urban amenities. This site has gone through numerous public processes over the past 15 years, including the adoption of a forward - looking General Plan amendment. We appreciate the time and effort that Alameda City staff have put into the latest process, Going Forward, and ask that the establishment of clear goals enhance it. At the beginning of any process, the identification of the purpose and objectives of the process will help to guide the implementation going forward. Inherently, a project the size of Alameda Point involves large decisions, including how the process will be implemented, what trade -offs are important to the community, and what goals do the elected representatives of the city have for a vision of future development. The staff report for tonight's meeting describes the purpose and intent of the Going Forward strategy as "identify(ing) and describe(ing) a community supported, financially feasible land use vision for Alameda Point ". We urge the council to refine this statement, by giving specific direction to staff for guiding principles and trade -offs to inform the vision and subsequent process. As Alameda staff has indicated, the Going Forward process is a very aggressive timeline for producing the documents necessary for an environmental review. Waiting until much of the work is done to set development policy at the Point will only result in delays for the project. Before engaging consultants in a $1 million process, we respectfully ask the council, in its role as redevelopment agency for the city of Alameda, to provide clear direction for the purpose and goals that any proposed development MAIN OFFICE • 631 Howard Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, CA 94105 • (415) 543 -6771 • Fax (415) 543 -6781 SOUTH BAY OFFICE • 1922 The Alameda, Suite 213, San Jose, CA 95126 • (408) 983 -0856 • Fax (408) 983 -1001 EAST BAY OFFICE • 1601 North Main Street, Suite 105, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 • (925) 932 -7776 • Fax (925) 932 -1970 SONOMA -MARIN OFFICE • 555 5th Street, Suite 300B, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 • (707) 575.3661 • Fax (707) 575 -4275 SOLANO -NAPA OFFICE • 725 Texas Street, Fairfield, CA 94533 • (707) 427 -2308 • Fax (707) 427 -2315 must meet. This direction can and should honor past input, including that gathered at the recent Going Forward outreach meetings. Greenbelt Alliance looks forward to continuing to work with the City of Alameda in developing an economically innovative and environmentally sustainable plan for Alameda Point that has broad community support. Thank you, Matt Vander Sluis Senior Field Representative, East Bay Greenbelt Alliance (925) 932-7776 mvandersluis@greenbelt.org Page 2 of 2 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Lisa Goldman Acting Executive Director Date: February 2, 2011 Re: Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve Issuance of a Request for Qualification for Developers BACKGROUND The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to property owners for a second campus to consolidate current programs that are located in leased space throughout the East Bay, and to prepare for long -term growth (Second Campus). The Second Campus will consolidate approximately 480,000 square feet of laboratory and office space in the first phase of development (Phase 1). The Second Campus must also have the development capacity for approximately two million gross square feet for future research and development facilities to meet LBNL's long -term needs during the next 30 to 50 years. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) has assembled an inter- departmental team to prepare the ARRA's response to the RFQ, led by the City Manager's Office with collaboration from Economic Development, Community Development, Public Works, and Alameda Municipal Power. Staff is also working closely with planning, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, and environmental consultants to prepare the response to the RFQ. DISCUSSION Staff requests that the ARRA provide direction on four key aspects of the ARRA's response to the RFQ: site location, planning guidelines, financial incentives, and a request for qualifications for developers. Site Location Staff has identified an approximately 50 -acre site in the southern portion of Alameda Point as the most competitive location for meeting LBNL's stated space and locational requirements for a Second Campus (Proposed Site) (Exhibit 1). As depicted on Exhibit 1, Phase 1 is proposed for the southwest corner of the Proposed Site, along Ferry Point Road between West Hornet Avenue and West Ticonderoga Avenue. Agenda Item #3 -B ARRA 2 -2 -2011 Honorable Chair and Members of February 2, 2011 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 5 Staff selected the Proposed Site based upon the following considerations and criteria: • The Proposed Site is not constrained by land use or development restrictions imposed by Tidelands Trust, the Wildlife Refuge Buffer, the Naval Air Station Historic District and the 100-year flood zone. • The General Plan and zoning designations for the Proposed Site are consistent with the plan for the Second Campus. No General Plan amendment or zoning amendments will be necessary to develop the Second Campus at Alameda Point. • The Proposed Site is immediately adjacent to, and compatible with, the Maritime Administration (MARAD) fleet operations at the piers in the southern portion of the property and the proposed Water Emergency Transportation Authority's (WETA) Central Bay Maintenance and Operation Facility. • The Proposed Site allows for a land use transition and "buffer zone" between the Second Campus and the residential neighborhoods east of Main Street. • The Proposed Site is strategically situated near the waterfront to provide the Second Campus with dramatic water views, as well as access to existing and proposed recreational uses, including the Bay Trail, that the RFQ identified as priorities for an ideal Second Campus location. • The Proposed Site provides easy and direct access along Pacific Avenue to restaurants, retail stores and hotels along Webster Street for future use by LBNL employees and visitors. Additionally, as the remainder of Alameda Point redevelops, LBNL employees will have the opportunity to walk to restaurants, retail facilities, and hotels at Alameda Point. • The Navy anticipates completion of environmental remediation at the Proposed Site in time to meet the construction timelines contained in the RFQ. Staff requests that the ARRA approve the proposed site location for the Second Campus. Planning Guidelines As part of the ARRA's response to the RFQ, staff intends to outline clearly any planning guidelines LBNL should be aware of in planning for its development. Staff requests that the ARRA Board confirm the following planning assumptions: 1. Planning Entitlement Process: The ARRA will work with LBNL to establish long- term entitlements for full buildout of the Second Campus over a multi-year period. The process would allow for approval of entitlements for the full two million square feet of development and of pre-determined design standards for each Honorable Chair and Members of February 2, 2011 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 of 6 new building. Conformity with the pre - determined architectural and site planning design standards would be subject to Planning Board review and approval. This process would be similar to the planning process for new campus developments at the Harbor Bay Business Park. 2. Building Heights: The existing zoning height limit is 100 feet (approximately 9 stories), but building heights should be limited primarily to three to four stories, with the possibility for one or two "signature" buildings of five to six stories in height. These building heights are compatible with the four and five story high MARAD fleet ships and the USS Hornet, which are 93 feet from the waterline. 3. Parking: The first phase of the project is proposed to include surface parking spaces, with subsequent phases of the Second Campus to include structured parking to minimize the amount of land needed to accommodate LBNL's long- term employee parking needs. 4. Public Improvements: Street and infrastructure improvements will be needed to accommodate and serve the Second Campus. Staff envisions a main entrance at Main Street and Pacific Avenue, with street improvements from that intersection into the Second Campus. Staff requests that the ARRA approve the proposed planning guidelines for the Second Campus. Financial incentives The RFQ requests that respondents describe potential financial incentives that may be offered for selection of the Proposed Site from the City, County, State, utilities, etc. Staff recommends that the ARRA offer the Proposed Site at no cost to LBNL because of the many direct and indirect public benefits that will accrue to the City from the Second Campus at Alameda Point, including: • A significant catalytic effect on the redevelopment of Alameda Point and Alameda Landing; • Spillover demand for office and lab space at Alameda Point and in local business parks; • New administrative, managerial and advanced degree positions and wages in the clean tech and life sciences fields with approximately 800 employees expected in Phase I; and • Local spending by LBNL employees with increases in local retail sales. Other financial incentives, such as fee waivers, tax rebates or reduced planning fees, would remain subject to negotiations with LBNL as part of future discussions. Honorable Chair and Members of February 2, 2011 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4 of 5 Staff requests that the ARRA approve the financial incentive of offering the Proposed Site to LBNL for the Second Campus at no cost. Developer RFQ The LBNL RFQ for a Second Campus anticipates that short- listed respondents will engage an entity with appropriate development experience to participate in the detailed negotiations and construct infrastructure and building facilities required for the Second Campus. In response to this request, staff has prepared an RFQ for Developers with experience relevant to the proposed Second Campus development in the event that Alameda Point is short- listed (Exhibit 2). Staff requests that the ARRA approve issuance of the attached RFQ for Developers. Next Steps Timeline for Decision - Making Process for LBNL Second Campus: City Council to Approve Resolution of Support for LBNL Second Campus at Alameda Point Responses Due Site Selection (Short List) Site Selection (Detailed Negotiations) Preliminary Development Agreement February 15, 2011 March 4, 2011 April 2011 June 2011 September 2011 Timeline for ARRA's Selection of Development Team for LBNL Second Campus: ARRA Issuance of Developer RFQ Responses Due Staff Interviews Selection Recommendation to ARRA FINANCIAL IMPACT February 3, 2011 March 3, 2011 March 15, 2011 April 12, 2011 The University of California (UC) intends to finance the development of the site. However, UC will also consider third -party financing, or a combination of public and private financing, if such financing would be more beneficial. It is expected that the City would receive many direct and indirect benefits from the Second Campus at Alameda Point. As a public institution, a Second Campus at Alameda Point will not generate any property or sales tax revenue for the City. The City anticipates that producing its Honorable Chair and Members of February 2, 2011 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 5 of 5 response may cost between $20,000 and $25,000, which will be paid through the existing ARRA budget. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE 1. The Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan (1996) calls for the creation of a mixed-use, sustainable development at Alameda Point, including an emphasis on significant job creation. 2. The Alameda Point General Plan Amendment (2003) encourages a mixed-use development, which includes over two million square feet of commercial development. 3. The City's Economic Development Strategic Plan (2000 and 2006) Strategy #1 is the creation of industrial and office jobs. RECOMMENDATION 1 Provide direction on key aspects of response to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point. 2. Approve issuance of a Request for Qualification for Developers tfully submitted. Jennife Ott Deputy ity Manager By: Eric Fonstein Economic Development Department Development Manager Exhibits: 1. Proposed Site for Second Campus at Alameda Point 2. Request for Qualifications for Developers for LBNL Second Campus at Alameda Point r.�U R,�d(ine. �,�.�- • 410V 164 ]� w 411"iir. a • i Y *- '' `: + �1 171.. W Midv�ay Aven • .9:cnu- d PROROSED, LB`LN CAMPUS SITE W Ticondr r.rz4a AJ,•r�i., • Tr Location Map 26 JANUARY 2011 LBNL Second Campus ARRA Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item #3 -B 2 -2 -2011 r�.,t" ;,— , — w • • •� ?' AU,mnr -Aven , BUILD -OUT 4'6+ AC TOTAL-- �- West Ticonderoga Avenue .." "`—. -. .. in. ii to !t A- :,. , r It_ Proposed Site 0 200 400 600 800 26 JANUARY 2011 LBNL Second Campus Alameda Point 1 City of Alameda, CA Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Request for Qualifications for ©evelapers for Lawrence Berkeley. National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus at Alameda Point ARRA Exhibit 2 to Agenda Item #3 -B 2 -2 -2011 Request for Qualifications for Developers for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus at Alameda Point I. Executive Summary The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) seeks to select a qualified developer to form a public /private partnership in the event that Alameda Point, a portion of the decommissioned Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS Alameda), is short- listed as a potential site for the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus. The Second Campus will be home to a state -of- the -art research and development facility for LBNL, including an initial phase of 480,000 square feet and subsequent phases of up to 2 million square feet at buildout. The qualified developer will be selected by the ARRA based on the developer's project understanding and approach; relevant experience and track record; financial resources; innovative approaches to financing and public partnerships; management team and structure; and proposed consultant team. II. Background The City of Alameda is an island community with a population of approximately 75,000 people located in the heart of the Bay Area. The western portion of the City is comprised of the former NAS Alameda, which was decommissioned in 1997. The 915 -acre portion of NAS Alameda controlled by the ARRA for future disposition and development is referred to as Alameda Point and represents one of the most unique infill waterfront development opportunities in the Bay Area. The ARRA is currently undertaking a master planning effort to create a vision and project description for a vibrant mixed -use waterfront community at Alameda Point. The project description is expected to be complete by July 2011. Once a vision for Alameda Point has been developed, the ARRA will commence its environmental review and entitlement process 1 for redevelopment of Alameda Point, aiming for approval by July 2013. Information about this current planning process and previous planning efforts at Alameda Point can be found at www .alamedapoint- goingforward.com. If successful in attracting the LBNL Second Campus to Alameda Point, the entitlement and development effort for the Second Campus will be coordinated closely with the ARRA's master planning process. III. Development Opportunity LBNL issued an RFQ for a Second Campus on January 3, 2011 (Exhibit 1). The ARRA is currently in the process of preparing a response to the RFQ for an approximate 50 -acre site at Alameda Point for submittal by the deadline of March 4, 2011. The RFQ does not require a development team to be in place at the time the initial response is due. However, LBNL anticipates creating a short-list of sites by April 2011, at which time the respondents are expected to have engaged an entity with the appropriate development experience. Based on developer responses to the ARRA RFQ and developer interviews, staff expects to recommend approval of a preferred developer to the ARRA at its March 15, 2011 meeting in order to meet LBNL's April deadline. The ARRA's proposed site at Alameda Point falls within the 25- minute distance requirement from LBNL's existing campus, meets all of the other requirements set forth in the LBNL RFQ, and is highly competitive for attracting the Second Campus due to its unique waterfront location in a safe community with a track record of supporting job - generating development (Exhibit 2). Additionally, the Alameda Point site requires minimal to no environmental remediation, is strategically located within minutes of a ferry teiuninal, bus routes, interstate freeways, and the Oakland International Airport, and is within close proximity of numerous recreational, retail, hotel, and restaurant Request for Qualifications for Developers for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus at Alameda Point amenities. Furthermore, LBNL can be an important and integral partner with the ARRA in shaping the vision and plan for the new community that will grow up around them. Pursuant to its Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance with the United States Navy (Navy), the ARRA has decided to offer the site to LBNL at no -cost through a long -term ground lease with an option to purchase upon conveyance of the property to the ARRA from the Navy. The ARRA's proposed Alameda Point site for LBNL is not within a historic district, 100 -year flood zone, an area subject to the Public Trust, or an endangered species buffer zone. IV. Role of Developer The selected developer will become the ARRA's private development partner and maintain primary responsibility for the following aspects of development of the Second Campus project: 1. Establishing a fair, effective, and collaborative partnership with the ARRA, the landlord and eventual landowner. 2. Pursuing and securing entitlements, including master site planning, environmental review, design review, coordination with the larger Alameda Point master planning effort, and negotiation of relevant development agreements with LBNL, in concert with the ARRA and City. 3. Design and phasing of infrastructure, landscape and buildings. 4. Construction of infrastructure, landscape, and facilities. 5. Potential private financing of predevelopment and development process. 2 V. Content of Statement of Qualifications The ARRA welcomes a response to this RFQ in a format that the developer believes best expresses the qualifications of the development team. It is requested, however, that the statement of qualifications (SOQ) submitted clearly include the elements described in this section. 1. Executive Summary. Brief synopsis of the development team's approach to development, public /private partnerships, key qualifications, and relevant experience. 2. Project Understanding and Approach. Discussion of the developer's (a) understanding of the City of Alameda, Alameda Point, the proposed LBNL RFQ, and proposed Alameda Point site, and (b) approach to meeting LBNL's requirements and the ARRA's goals and objectives expressed in this RFQ. 3. Description of Project Team. Description of the developer's structure, designated project manager, and project management team, including of the role of each team member. Please also include resumes and references for each member of the project management team. 4. Description of Consultant Team. Summary of the developer's selected team of consultants to meet the development needs requested by LBNL, including master planning, engineering (i.e., civil, transportation, structural, geotechnical), and building and landscape architecture consultants. Please also provide resumes and references for key consultant staff members. 5. Previous Experience. Description of the specific project experience of the entity, key individual team members, and consultants in entitlements; infrastructure development and phasing; build -to -suit commercial development; specialized research and Request for Qualifications for Developers for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus at Alameda Point development facilities; large -scale multi- year, infill and brownfield redevelopment; federal and/or State solicitations. Please also include references for at least five of the previous projects referenced in this section. 6. Financial Qualifications. Provision of clear evidence of financial resources to assist in the entitlement and development of the LBNL Second Campus at Alameda Point, as indicated by financial statements, a description of relationships with investors and lending institutions, and past project performance. Please provide specific information on typical sources of predevelopment funds, construction financing, long -term financing, and other working capital. 7. Proposed Relationship and Roles between ARRA, Developer, and LBNL. A proposal for the envisioned management, legal, and financial relationships and roles between the ARRA, developer, and LBNL during each of the four stages of the proposed LBNL selection and development process, as indicated in the LBNL RFQ: i. Site Selection -- Detailed Negotiations ii. Preliminary Development Agreement Negotiations iii. Conceptual Development Plan and Environmental Assessment Process iv. Design, Phasing, and Construction of Infrastructure and Vertical Development Process 8. Acceptance of Conditions. An acceptance of all rules and conditions specified in this RFQ, as evidenced by the respondent's completion of the attached certification form (Exhibit 3). 3 VI. Selection Process 1. Submittal Date and Location. Fifteen (15) hard copies and one electronic pdf copy of the SOQ are due at 4:00 PM on March 3, 2011. Responses must be delivered via mail or hand delivery to: Jennifer Ott Deputy City Manager City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320 Alameda, CA 94501 Please contact Jennifer Ott at jott(aci.alalneda.ca.us or (510) 747 -4747 with any questions regarding this RFQ. 2. Review Process. Responses to the RFQ will be reviewed and evaluated by a team of staff according to the criteria outlined below. A short list of developers will be invited to participate in an interview. Based on the SOQ and interview, staff will recommend a preferred developer to the ARRA at the April 12, 2011 meeting. The ARRA may elect to postpone this date in order to solicit feedback from LBNL on the final selection process. 3. Selection Criteria. SOQs will be evaluated along with the results of the ARRA's due diligence and reference checks. More specifically, the criteria used to assist in the selection of a preferred developer will be: • Responsiveness to this RFQ • Evidence of relevant experience • Technical capability and relevant experience of the project management and consultant team • Evidence of financial resources • Innovative approaches to financing and public partnerships • In depth understanding of project 4. Interview Date. Staff is holding March 15, 2011 for interviews of the selected short list Request for Qualifications for Developers for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus at Alameda Point of developers. To the extent possible, please reserve this date in the event your team is short- listed. The ARRA will make its formal response to the LBNL RFQ available to the short list of qualified developers. VII. General Conditions Any material clarifications or modifications to the RFQ or the selection process will be made in writing and provided to all respondents who provide written confirmation of their intent to submit to Jennifer Ott at the contact information provided above. It is the responsibility of the developers, prior to submitting a response to the RFQ, to ascertain if any notices, clarifications, addenda, or other communications to responders have been issued by the ARRA. Oral explanations or instructions from City staff, City officials, or consultants shall not be considered binding on the City. Developers' responsiveness to all items in this RFQ will be taken as evidence of the developer's interest and commitment to the project. A failure to respond completely will be interpreted as a lack of full interest and commitment or a defi- ciency on the developer's part. The ARRA reserves the right to: • Modify or cancel the selection process or schedule at any time. • Waive minor irregularities. • Reject any and all responses to this RFQ and to seek new responses when it is in the best interest of the ARRA to do so. • Seek clarification or additional information from respondents as it deems necessary to the evaluation of the response. • Request any additional information or evidence from individual respondents, including but not limited to evidence of the developer's financial status. 4 • Judge the developer's written or oral representations as to their veracity, substance and relevance to proposed Second Campus development at Alameda Point, including seeking and evaluating independent information on any development team. • Incorporate this RFQ and the selected team's response to this RFQ as a part of any formal agreement between the City and the developer. • Modify the development opportunity available to potential developers. All documents, conversations, correspondence, etc. between the ARRA and developers are public information subject to the laws and regulations that govern the ARRA, unless specifically identified otherwise. All expenses related to any developer's response to this RFQ, or other expenses incurred during the period of time the selection process is underway, are the sole obligation and responsibility of that development team. The ARRA will not, directly or indirectly, assume responsibility for these costs. In addition, the ARRA shall not be liable for any real estate commissions or brokerage fees which may arise as a result of the developer selection process. The respondent shall not offer any gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value to any offi- cial, employee, or outside consultant associated with the development of the Second Campus at Alameda Point for purposes of influencing consideration of a response to this RFQ. The ARRA makes no representations about the con- ditions of the site, including buildings, utilities, soils, or other surface or subsurface conditions. The respondent shall make its own conclusions concerning such conditions. Information provided in this RFQ made available on the website or on CDIDVD, or by ARRA staff, or consultants, is provided for the convenience of the responders Request for Qualifications for Developers for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) Second Campus at Alameda Point only. The accuracy or completeness of this information is not warranted by the ARRA. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) # 0103 LBNL SECOND CAMPUS University of California Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 1 Cyclotron Road Berkeley, CA 94720 -8288 Contact: Ms. Laura B. Crosby Phone 510.495.2607 Email lbcrosby @lbLgov http: / /www.lbl.gov /Community /second- campus/ LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 ARTICLE 1. INTRODUCTION The Regents of the University of California (University) manage Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL, Berkeley Lab, the Laboratory), a federally funded research and development center, under a prime contract with the US Department of Energy (DOE). Berkeley Lab conducts unclassified research across a wide range of disciplines to deliver science -based solutions to problems of national significance, with a strong emphasis on energy efficiency and carbon reduction. It employs approximately 4,200 scientists, engineers, support staff and students. Eleven scientists associated with Berkeley Lab have won the Nobel Prize. Approximately 280 LBNL scientists hold a joint appointment with a University of California campus. Berkeley Lab's base budget for fiscal year 2010 was approximately $718 million. A recent study estimates the Laboratory's overall economic impact on the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties to be nearly $700 million annually. Technologies developed at Berkeley Lab have generated billions of dollars in revenues, and thousands of jobs. Savings as a result of Berkeley Lab developments in lighting and windows, and other energy - efficient technologies, are in the billions of dollars. LBNL is located in the Berkeley hills, immediately adjacent to the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. The University seeks to develop a second LBNL campus with the potential for approximately 2 million gross square feet (GSF) of research and development facilities to accelerate its pace of innovation, technology transfer, and commercialization; creating high quality jobs in the process. The new campus would consolidate approximately 480,000 GSF of leased laboratory and office space in the first phase of development. Existing programs in leased facilities include Genomics, Life Sciences, and Physical Biosciences. The balance of the development capacity would allow for additional consolidation, growth of existing programs, new initiatives, and co- location with UC Berkeley, other UC programs, and complementary third - party R &D organizations. The University is issuing this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the purpose of identifying a short list of sites that best meet the Site Attributes listed in Article 2. Accordingly, the University is requesting eligible organizations to submit a written response to this RFQ in accordance with the schedule defined in Article 6. The University intends to identify several sites from the responses to this RFQ and enter into more detailed negotiations with the landowners and /or land representatives ( "Respondents "). The results of these more detailed negotiations would be the final selection of a preferred site for the second campus. It is the University's expectation that all short listed Respondents will engage an entity with appropriate development experience to participate in the detailed negotiations and that the third party developer will construct the infrastructure and facilities. The University intends to finance the development of the site. However, the University will also consider third party financing, or a combination of public and private financing, if such financing would be more beneficial. The University owns a 90+ acre property in Richmond which is generally referred to as the Richmond Field Station (RFS). RFS by and large meets the parameters of the Site Attributes. Respondents to this RFQ should know that the University may choose to site the second campus at RFS and will be evaluating potential sites relative to their ability to better meet the needs of the University and the DOE. Page 2 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 ARTICLE 2. SITE ATTRIBUTES The University seeks to have the following attributes for its second campus, to the maximum extent practicable: 1. The site should allow for the development of a state -of- the -art facility with a beautiful environment that will be the location of choice for internationally recognized researchers. It should allow for sustainable land use and circulation patterns, maximizing density to reduce overall building footprints and conserve open space. The site should allow for the placement and massing of buildings to maximize shared views. 2. The location should be within an approximately 20 to 25- minute commute from the existing LBNL main entrance at Blackberry Gate. 3. The site should have development capacity for approximately 2 million gross square feet of laboratory, office, and support facilities. 4. The site should be able to accommodate future large -scale research activities, including potential structures approximately 3,000 feet in length. 5. The second campus should be located in a welcoming community with a positive civic expression of interest in development of the site and the resulting creation of high quality jobs. 6. The second campus should be located in a safe community to ensure that employees, visitors, and guests are safe when coming to /returning home from work. 7. The site should be readily accessible to a variety of modes of public transportation, inclusive of local buses, mass transit (BART, Amtrak, and AC Transit), and shuttle services. The site should allow for ADA accessible grade -level connections. The site should allow safe bicyclist access from a designated bike path such as the Bay Trail. 8. The site should be proximate to either existing or planned restaurants and cafes which offer a range in price and food types, preferably within walking distance. The site should be proximate to either existing or planned convenience stores, a post office, banks and /or ATMs, auto repair /gas stations, child care facilities, hotels, and motels. These establishments should be no more than a 10- minute commute. The site should be proximate to existing or planned publicly- accessed recreational facilities such as gymnasiums, health clubs, and outdoor fields. 9. The site should facilitate efficient constructability of facilities (buildings, parking structures, bridges, etc.), infrastructure development (roads, underground utilities, pedestrian walkways, etc.), and open space. 10. The site should allow for the development of sustainable land use and circulation patterns which maximize bicycle, pedestrian and shuttle services. 11. The site should allow for electrical, natural gas, and water utilities for the lowest possible cost. 12. The site should have, or it should be reasonably feasible to attain, unimpeded (not crossing public roads) access to public fiber optic paths (telephone, cable company or third party) and dual cable entrance facilities. 13. The site should require minimal or no environmental remediation or have a funded plan approved to address remediation. Any prior decontamination of the site should have been in accordance with state and federal requirements. Page 3 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 14. The area surrounding the site should provide adequate separation from sources of vibration (e.g. railways, freeways, etc.) or electromagnetic radiation (e.g. overhead transmission lines or power substation) and the potential research facilities areas. 15. The site should have minimal overdraft (groundwater depletion) and groundwater related subsidence. It should not be located in areas where there is the risk of flooding caused by storm - related events, potential dam failure, or coastal hazards (including sea water rise) that cannot be mitigated at a reasonable expense. If buildings exist on the site, they should include systems for appropriate storm water management and wastewater discharge related to existing aquifers, waterways, and storm water systems. 16. The site should have minimal occurrence of highly - compressible ground surface conditions (e.g. areas known or considered prone to liquefaction). 17. Any existing buildings that the Respondent proposes for use by LBNL must meet the current version of the University of California seismic requirements (or be rehabilitated to meet those requirements), which can be found at: http: / /www.ucop.edu /facil /resg /seismic- safety ARTICLE 3. CONTENT OF THE RESPONSE Each response to the RFQ must include the following: 1. General A. Include a cover letter identifying the Respondent's name and address, solicitation number and title, and the name(s), title(s), email address, and telephone number(s) of the individuals who have commitment authority on behalf of the site. 2. Summary Statement A. Provide a statement of the key reasons why this site should be short- listed for further consideration as LBNL's second campus. - 1 page maximum B. Provide a summary of the site's legal description, soil characteristics, environmental condition, utilities, sustainable elements, existing facilities and tenants, unusual costs associated with constructing facilities, developer /land owner attributes, entitlement, distance from LBNL, accessibility, local public transportation, service providers and amenities proximate to the site, neighborhood characteristics, and local attitude toward a project of this type and scale. - 2 page maximum 3. Developer / Land Owner attributes: A. Provide a brief description of the Respondent's legal structure. B. Provide a history of Respondent's business experience in California, the Bay Area, and the locality within which the proposed site exists. Respondents are not expected to have a development team or partnership identified at this stage in the process. However, if such information is available please provide the following: C. Describe the development partnership, if any, proposed for the project. Provide a description of the partnership skills, resources and, if the partnership has been formed, the terms of the partnership agreement. D. Describe the Respondent's willingness and ability to finance the development of the second campus. Provide a history of the entity's financing experience for similar projects. Page 4 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 E. Provide a copy of the Respondent's financial statements for the most recent three years. The University will treat any financial information in the response to this RFQ as proprietary. 4. Entitlement: [Please note: The University is generally exempt from local jurisdictions having land use authority. If the land is controlled by UC, UC may entitle the development. Provide the following information for purposes of comparison and to understand local land use designations.l A. Describe the current zoning of the site and the adjacent properties. Provide information with respect to anticipated future zoning changes, types of change and associated timeframes. B. Describe the development capacity under the current zoning and /or the anticipated zoning change(s). Provide massing studies if available, or otherwise describe potential development capacity up to 2 million square feet. C. Provide a listing of the local / state / federal authority approval(s) required for development of the site and describe the process necessary to obtain the approvals. 5. Physical Site Characteristics A. Legal Description i. Name of the site: Provide a common, recognizable name for the proposed second campus to which it will be referenced by the Respondent. ii. Size of the site: Provide the size of the site in gross and developable acreage with current and and property zoning requirements and restrictions for the parcel(s) and /or building(s). iii. Location, legal description: Provide the location of the site with the physical address inclusive of street name and number, city, municipality, zip code, and county. Provide the applicable parcel information, property vesting information, tax and assessment information, tract number, subdivision number, legal lot number, and document number. iv. Title: Provide a preliminary title commitment and access to all underlying title documents through an ftp (file transfer protocol to transfer data from one computer to another) website. If an entity other than the respondent controls portions of the site, describe the relationship to the respondent and method for securing fee simple title. Also provide information on any other unrecorded rights including leases that might affect development of the property. v. Title Transfer: Describe the method for transferring fee title of the site to the University (e.g. purchase of the entire site prior to construction, purchase upon completion of the first phase, lease purchase over time, or other method of transfer such as a gift) and the expected method for determining the purchase price (e.g. appraisal, negotiated price, dedication of land). B. Soil Characteristics (to the extent known) Groundwater level: Provide an assessment of the existing groundwater levels describing known aquifers, water cycles, overdraft (groundwater depletion), and groundwater related subsidence, and /or seawater intrusion. Provide a description of the known groundwater levels as they apply to the borders and site property lines. Page 5 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 ii. Geotechnical reports: Provide a description of the existing geotechnical conditions including the terrain and prior known land use, general area geology, fault proximity, landslides, and other concerns such as sink hole, fracturing problems, and risk of liquefaction. Provide the key findings of any formal reports developed for the site and the web address of an ftp site where the full reports and files can be accessed. iii. Vibration sources in vicinity: Describe existing vibration sources within the vicinity of the proposed site such as heavy vehicles on conventional pavement and existing rail systems. iv. Constructability: Describe the average depth of bedrock throughout the site. Provide an assessment of constructability on the site with respect to excavation for foundations, underground utilities, subterranean parking structures, underground storage tanks and the like which references the U.S. Geological Survey map and map database for the Oakland metropolitan area, Alameda and Contra Costa counties. C. Environmental Contamination: i. Soil: Provide a description of previous removal or treatment of contaminated soils. ii. Groundwater: Provide a description of previous removal or treatment of contaminated groundwater. iii. Current / Prior regulatory status: Describe the current and prior regulatory status of the proposed site with regard to contaminated soil and groundwater. iv. Environmental cleanup adiacent to the site: Describe the extent of past, current or future environmental cleanup measures for properties within 2,000 feet of the property boundary. v. Environmental studies: Describe the environmental studies that have been and /or still need to be conducted for the site. Provide the key findings of any formal reports developed for the site and the web address of an ftp site where the full reports and files can be accessed. D. Site Constraints: Provide a map, or series of maps, of the site with the extent of all development constraints clearly outlined and color- coded. i. Soil contamination: Describe the extent of soil contamination (if any) on the proposed site and the clean up required. ii. Groundwater contamination: Describe the extent of groundwater contamination on the proposed site and the clean up required. iii. Setback: Describe any restrictions that inhibit development within a certain distance from the property border or other boundaries. iv. Special purpose land use restrictions: Describe any restrictions that inhibit development within a certain area due to a special purpose designation (e.g. State Tidelands, wildlife refuge buffer, or public waterfront access). v. Utilities Right -of -Ways: Describe any restrictions or easements that inhibit development within utilities right -of -ways. Describe any nearby electromagnetic radiation sources such as overhead transmission lines or power substations. vi. Endangered species and protected habitats: Describe any restrictions that inhibit development within areas designated as protected habitats, wildlife habitats and Page 6 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 movement corridors (e.g. endangered domestic fish, wildlife, native plant species, riparian and wetland habitats). vii. Surface conditions: Describe any restrictions that inhibit development within areas where there is an occurrence of highly - compressible ground surface conditions (e.g. areas known or considered prone to liquefaction). viii. Municipality land use: Describe any land use constraints, zoning, development density, zoning floor area ratios (F.A.R.), perimeter open space or parcel size restrictions that may inhibit development of the site. ix. Historic designation: Describe any historical, institutional, or contractual constraints that may restrict development (e.g. National Register listing, city charter site planning provision, view corridors, designated architectural styles, circulation frameworks, street design and landscaping). x. Archeological assessment: Describe any archeological study areas with statutory protections that may inhibit development. xi. 100 -Year flood hazards: Describe any areas evaluated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program being designated as inundated by a 100 - year flood. Describe the site's elevation, or range of elevations, above sea level. xii. Topographical: Describe any areas that significantly affect facility design (e.g. steep slopes, areas of bedrock, significant ridgelines, and projected sea level rise). Provide a topographical map with site boundaries clearly marked. xiii. Areas of Severe Fire Danger: Describe the prevailing wind patterns and any areas notable for being within severe fire areas. xiv. Fault zones: Describe any geologic constraints (e.g. landslides and active fault traces) that may restrict development of facilities. xv. Open space designation and land conservation: Describe any reserved undeveloped space or open space requirements that may restrict development of the site. xvi. Neighborhood interface: Describe any restrictions on development at the interface between the surrounding neighborhood and the site. E. Utilities (Availability / Capacity / Source) i. Electricity Service Level: Describe the electrical service in both voltage and amperage capacity available on or to the site noting how much electrical service is readily available. ii. Natural Gas Capacity: Describe the natural gas capacity that is available at the site. Provide size of main and pressure. iii. Water: Describe the available water sources to the site; provide the size of the mains and available pressure. iv. Telecommunications: Describe the available telephone and networking infrastructures on or to the site and provide a list of telecommunications network system operators within proximity to the site. v. Storm and Sanitary Sewer: Describe the storm water and sanitary sewer utilities that currently serve the site. Describe control measures that are required for the proposed site and list known restrictions, including required hazardous control Page 7 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 measures.. Provide information on the wastewater treatment plant(s) that serve the site. F. Sustainable elements: Describe the available or potential renewable energy elements of the proposed site (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass). Address existing sustainable elements with regard to brownfield redevelopment, protection and /or restoration of habitat, or heat island effect and light pollution reduction strategies which are or may be employed. G. Existing Facilities and Tenants: i. Provide a site plan to scale with locations of existing, above - ground pertinent features (e.g. buildings, major utilities sources). Provide a list of the existing buildings. Note year constructed, gross square footage, height, number of stories, type of construction, condition of the structure, foundations type & depth, and general condition. Describe current use (e.g. lab, office, warehouse, shop, retail, manufacturing, etc.). ii. Provide a list of the tenants in each existing building and information with respect to lease expiration, and any other relevant occupancy information (such as renewal options and first rights of refusal for purchase of the real estate). iii. Provide a plan to vacate existing buildings on the site inclusive of schedule and phasing of activities. Describe any costs associated with lease buy -out and relocation. iv. Provide a rough order -of- magnitude range of the cost associated with demolishing any existing structures inclusive of buildings, operational yards, and underground utilities and necessary abatement. H. Unusual costs associated with constructing facilities at site: i. Describe site characteristics which will increase construction cost, e.g. substantial removal of industrial equipment; removal of decommissioned underground storage tanks; potential for archeological findings, etc. ii. Describe abnormal infrastructure costs that would be associated with the construction of roads, curbs, gutters, streets, sidewalks, drainage systems and utilities. iii. Describe attributes of existing buildings and /or infrastructure which can be reused or repurposed. Include age and condition of structure and /or equipment and provide a rough order -of- magnitude range of costs adequate for necessary refurbishment. iv. Provide a rough order -of- magnitude range of the costs associated with environmental cleanup to commercial standards as defined by regulatory agencies. Describe the scheduling and /or phasing of such activities. 6. Location Characteristics: A. Distance from LBNL Blackberry Gate: i. Describe the distance and how it was measured from the proposed site to LBNL's main entrance at Blackberry Gate. ii. Describe average and peak commute times (and how measured) to the proposed site from LBNL's main entrance at Blackberry Gate (as shown in Article 16). Page 8 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 B. Access: i. Provide a description of the existing access conditions on and off the proposed site. Describe the main arteries and accessible routes and proximity to existing major streets, roadways or freeways and the potential impact that additional vehicles may pose on these infrastructures. C. Public Transportation: i. Describe the current available modes of public transportation to and from the site as well as the proximity of access to these services. Include access to available parking facilities, local buses, mass transit (BART, Amtrak, and AC Transit) and /or available shuttle services. Describe routes of pedestrian access from these services. ii. Provide a description of additional public transportation planned for the site. iii. Provide a description of the pedestrian and bicycle routes to and from the site. D. Amenities associated with, or proximate to, the site (existing and planned): i. Restaurants / Cafes: Describe the immediate and surrounding area food service operations and establishments available to the site. Provide the type, size, price range and hours of operation for these entities, as well as an approximate travel distance from the site. ii. Conference facilities: Describe the size of available conferencing facilities, type of services available, price range, and hours of operation for these entities, as well as an approximate travel distance from the site. iii. Retail stores: Describe the immediate and surrounding area retail establishments available to the site. Provide the type, size, price range, and hours of operation for these entities, as well as an approximate travel distance from the site. iv. Hotels: Describe the immediate and surrounding area hotels, motels, and extended -stay establishments available to the site. Provide the type, size, and price range, as well as an approximate travel distance from the site. v. Recreation facilities: Describe the immediate and surrounding area recreation facilities (both indoor and outdoor) available to the site. Provide the type, size, and applicable usage price range, as well as an approximate travel distance from the site. E. Neighborhood Characteristics: i. Provide a description of the neighboring properties and associated land uses. Describe the residential, commercial, industrial, and historic characteristics of the surrounding properties. ii. Describe any current development in close proximity to the site which would be complementary to scientific research and development. Provide information as to size of the development and the types of buildings being developed. iii. Identify the types and frequency of crimes in the neighborhood or locality. iv. Describe any current or planned development in close proximity to the site which would be detrimental to scientific research and development. Provide information as to size of the development and types of buildings being developed. Describe Page 9 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 impacts on access, public transportation, amenities and the neighborhood that could affect the proposed site. 7. Local attitude toward a protect of this type and scale: A. Describe the civic expression of interest in development of the site for the second campus. B. Describe the potential financial incentives that may be offered for selection of the site from the city, county, state, utilities, etc. C. Describe potential items that would be required for development of the site such as a fire station, utilities improvements, road improvements, open- space, Bay Trail development, etc. D. Include letters of support from local municipalities, development agencies, neighborhood groups, and commercial organizations. ARTICLE 4. RFQ QUESTIONS The University will respond to questions submitted in writing via email to Laura B. Crosby on or before February 25, 2011 — at or before 5 PM (PST). Questions submitted after the stated date may not be answered. Put RFQ # 0103 in the email subject line and send questions to: Ibcrosby @Ibl.gov Answers to questions that are germane to the interpretation of the University's requirements will be posted with other relevant information and documents on the following website: http: / /www.lbl.gov /Community /second- campus/ ARTICLE 5. AMENDMENTS If necessary, the University will provide supplementary information in amendment form with specific instructions. Amendments will be posted on the website listed in Article 4: Respondents are encouraged to check the website periodically to obtain any new postings. ARTICLE 6. SUBMITTAL OF QUALIFICATIONS Qualifications shall be submitted at or before 3:00 PM (PST) on March 4, 2011. Submit 4 printed copies and one set of electronic files via email, flash drive, or ftp site to the addresses listed below. US Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery Email Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Procurement — Attn. Laura B. Crosby One Cyclotron Rd. — Mail Stop 76 -225 Berkeley, CA 94720 -8288 LBCrosby @Ibl.gov Respondents are responsible for assuring that qualifications are received in accordance with the submittal requirements. If the qualifications are to be delivered in person, call or email Laura Crosby (ph. 510.495.2607 — Ibcrosby @Ibl.gov) on the day before the due date to arrange a gate pass. There will be no public opening of qualifications and the identity of Respondents will remain confidential until the short list of sites has been established. Page 10 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 Acceptance of late responses will be at the University's sole discretion. The University reserves the right to reject any and all responses, to waive any minor irregularities in any response, and to cancel this RFQ at any time without cost to the University. The University will not reimburse any Respondent or be liable for the cost of preparing and responding to this RFQ. ARTICLE 7. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION The University will treat any commercial or financial information in the response to this RFQ as proprietary. The University prefers not to receive proprietary technical information. If the proposal includes any proprietary technical information, it must be marked "Proprietary" or equivalent. The University will use its reasonable efforts to (1) maintain such proprietary information in confidence, giving it the same degree of care, but no less than a reasonable degree of care, as it exercises with its own proprietary information to prevent its unauthorized disclosure; and (2) only disclose such proprietary information to its employees, agents, consultants, subcontractors or Government personnel who have a need to know in order to achieve the goals stated within this RFQ. ARTICLE 8. BASIS FOR QUALIFICATION The University intends to short-list potential sites with the combination of features and attributes that offer the best overall second campus location. The University will evaluate each response based on the information provided, the University's own experience, and /or information from public sources. The qualification criteria the University will use to evaluate sites include the following factors (not listed in order of importance): 1. Location and proximity to LBNL 2. Development capacity 3. Ability to provide a workplace environment which would facilitate world class research 4. Compatible surrounding neighborhoods 5. Environmental site constraints associated with development of the site 6. Public transportation accessibility 7. Proximity to amenities that enhance the workplace environment 8. Community support for the proposed development 9. Sustainable development potential 10. Existing and potential utilities capacity and the ability to secure low -cost utility service 11. Existing buildings potential for adaptive reuse 12. Ability to develop the site in a timely manner 13. Unusual costs associated with development of the site 14. Impact of other development(s) in the surrounding neighborhoods ARTICLE 9. REQUIREMENTS AFTER RESPONSE The Respondents may be required to submit additional information which allows the University to make a more informed decision about placing the site on the short list. Following submittal of qualifications, some or all Respondents may be required to provide this additional information in one or all of the following ways: Page 11 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 1. Respond to requests for clarifications 2. Submit additional information upon request 3. Make a presentation and provide immediate responses to questions ARTICLE 10. FUNDING Funding for the development of the second campus will be identified following the identification of a preferred site. ARTICLE 11. APPROXIMATE SCHEDULE The University anticipates establishing a short list of the most suitable sites by April 2011. An approximate schedule for the project is shown in the following table. The schedule is preliminary and subject to change, depending on the outcome of each project phase. Project Phase Begin End Issue and Response to RFQ January 3, 2011 March 4, 2011 Site Selection — Short List by University March 2011 April 2011 Site Selection — Detailed Negotiations April 2011 June 2011 Select Preferred Site June 2011 June 2011 Preliminary Development Agreement July 2011 September 2011 Conceptual Development Plan September 2011 June 2012 Environmental Assessment November 2011 November 2012 University and DOE Approvals October 2012 November 2012 Design July 2012 June 2013 Construction July 2013 October 2015 Occupancy December 2015 ARTICLE 12. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS The University reserves the right to enter into discussion with any Respondent on any aspect of this RFQ. The University further reserves the right to request additional information or clarification from any Respondent as necessary. The expected result of this RFQ is identification of a short list of sites for further evaluation. The University does not anticipate entering into a contract as a result of this RFQ. By participation in this RFQ process, the Respondent agrees to hold harmless the University, its officers, employees, student and consultants from all claims, liabilities and costs related to all aspects of the selection process. The University reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to discuss the requirements of this RFQ or any element of a response to this RFQ with any entity. If the University elects to enter into such discussions with any entity, the University shall have no obligation to give notice to any other entity of the fact or content of such discussions. Page 12 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 ARTICLE 13. REAL ESTATE BROKER /AGENT REPRESENTATION The University is not represented by any real estate broker and /or agent. Any agent, broker or other support used in responding to this RFQ shall be payable by the Respondent. ARTICLE 14. PREFERRED SITE IDENTIFICATION The University will conduct a more comprehensive review of each site selected for the short list in order to identify a preferred site. Short listed sites without a development partner will have the opportunity to assemble their development team in order to conduct detailed negotiations. The Respondents for each of the short- listed sites will be required to submit detailed information that will allow the University to make a preferred site selection based substantially on the following factors: 1. Location 2. Ability to meet mission objectives 3. Schedule 4. Initial and Life -cycle cost 5. Risks 6. Potential for environmental impacts 7. Respondent's experience and past development performance. It is expected that additional factors may also be considered. The University reserves the right to negotiate with any one or more Respondent upon terms that may differ from the terms and conditions originally solicited or offered. The Department of Energy and the Regents of the University of California must approve the University's execution of any transaction related to the second campus ARTICLE 15. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This RFQ, the identification of a short list of sites, and the identification of a preferred site are not actions that trigger environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Appropriate environmental assessments will be completed prior to UC and DOE approvals. Page 13 of 14 LBNL 2nd Campus RFQ # 0103 ARTICLE 16. LBNL BLACKBERRY CANYON GATE LOCATION The map shown below highlights the location of the Blackberry Canyon Gate main entrance to LBNL. Driving times to the proposed site should be measured from this location. The gate is on Cyclotron Road, which turns into Hearst Avenue on the north side of the UC, Berkeley campus. LBNL Blackberry Canyon Gate END OF RFQ# 0103 Page 14 of 14 -••, • RecflinerAventre fri • • e'er/ -r • • • raf • 4*, -- ........ -'*<4 • 4' it 11 Ami .947-1.441.A1 - • "7 77 • # ' • •^*',?7,1 Mit7vv ay -Cy, t4.4 - cp. , -;rr• ■ - -........... ..f ,.., ..,,,■14,..,..4, _.--'' ' -- .-:•,,,V42“ii., ? ,S---.,,.: .rr '.. ,_,_._,: W. enue -4r,Azlee "14470 • ■'" ve ore f ' ' - • = -7.77!11-Or' ,.:,.... .... :."...,....,:;..._:,..„..,,:,,T,77:77_, _,,„,..„,,,,f,,,,„,.„...„.. „.,:. -7,.........;,.......cl, . ".' ''..• ,7 !-'' ' I — - -1 • =---- . --- 1-7',- '' -- • -, 1. ' ' ''.1-';,...."*- .:','":-L.'- 4 "1.,. 4 , ..!--... , ‘.-_,. . ,,,1%,.,„ If lc lovi•rlut - -,' ' ....-_,-: - ---', --- : - 41°J4,16, I _i---'?' •:•7 -, •• 7 ''' -'17 ' r - 7', •'-r !.. ' -,'-'1' •:.•/..•...■ '''":. -s•': 7 ' } 7- -,--!,--',•--,-.-•74). • - • . ' - -: -- ., - -.-. -- - ' -- .• • -. .:j-.-..:.-.-;-. .; "...,, --. Fif-'-. 1, ,. : -;.-.,:,-. -,: ..1..'-.;,.,!...... ■ ' ;-•;,-•:.-..,., ;t: ....;,-.-.: .‘.,>. .h.-..-.,11.i47t...-.b,-:.l,1,t.; , , ROROSED . ' L Rip ; •-- - ...,- hi .'''' *'...--,:'`i•-(1: CAMPUS k n d e r 0 c, , ■■'.-11 SITE W. • fT Location Map 26 JANUARY 2011 LBNL Second Campus Alameda Point 1 City of Alameda, CA • ,I r Ayr' ! M • • ; ::A4"14.•+",•=4,11'. Ai-Li r: t - -Av, �,t!• ftl„.4 i 44 f Facit:c ��un . --yam n,. 1 •- . J. .tv _'sit .� •r West Ticonderoga _ -. ty " � ro a Ave�yc��, , ! ' ii • ,7 7 1 - -�? Proposed Site 0 200 400 600 800 1 1 26 JANUARY 2011 LBNL Second Campus Alameda Point 1 City of Alameda, CA Exhibit 3 Acceptance of Conditions Certification Form Statement of Qualifications for Developers for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Second Campus for Alameda Point Proposer's Certification I have carefully examined the Request for Qualifications and any other documents accompanying or made a part of the Request for Qualifications. 1 have agreed to abide by all conditions of this proposal. 1 certify that all information contained in this proposal is truthful to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further certify that I am duly authorized to submit this proposal on behalf of the vendor /contractor as its act and deed and that the vendor /contractor is ready, willing, and able to perform if awarded the contract. 1 further certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, connection, discussion, or collusion with any other person, firm or corporation submitting Statements of Qualification for the same product or service; no officer, employee or agent of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority or of any other proposer interested in said proposal; and that the undersigned executed this Proposer's Certification with full knowledge and understanding of the matters therein contained and was duly authorized to do so. SIGNATURE NAME OF BUSINESS, TYPED OR PRINTED NAME & TITLE ADDRESS CITY /STATE/ZIP CODE PHONE Russell Resources, Inc. environmental management Alameda Point RAB Meeting on January 6, 2011 Highlights and Analysis RAB members present: Dale Smith (Community Co- Chair), George Humphreys, Joan Konrad, James Leach, Jean Sweeney, Jim Sweeney, and Michael John Torrey. Remediation and other field work in progress: o A Navy/EPA/University of Florida field research study is in progress at Plume 4 -1, immediately north of Building 360 near Alameda Point's east entrance. The research focuses on better characterizing the solvent contamination in groundwater prior to remedy selection and design. This research should improve not only the Navy's cleanup of OU -2B groundwater, but similar contamination elsewhere. o A pilot test of groundwater treatment at the IR Site 1 landfill, which began in October, is still underway. o Groundwater monitoring is ongoing to assess the effectiveness of remediation at IR Site 6 (Building 41, Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Facility), IR Site 14 (former fire training area in Northwest Territory, along Oakland Inner Harbor), IR Site 26 (northernmost hangar in the western hangar row), and IR Site 28 (Todd Shipyards). o Radiological status surveys of selected buildings to rule out potential radiological residues are ongoing. o The air sparge /vapor extraction system to treat groundwater contaminated with benzene and naphthalene at Alameda Point OU -5 and FISCA IR Site 2 is operating. o Most of the petroleum - contaminated groundwater treatment operation near the Atlantic Avenue entrance has been completed. However, further groundwater treatment is being conducted in a small area near the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Orion Street where higher petroleum levels persist. o Dredging of the northeast and northwest corners of Seaplane Lagoon began in early January. The dredging is scheduled to continue until March 15, 2011, when it will have to be terminated due to least -tern habitat considerations. The Navy expects to have completed all planned dredging activities by that date. OU -2C Revised Draft Feasibility Study The Navy presented an overview of its revised draft Feasibility Study for OU -2C, which currently is available for review and comment by the environmental regulatory agencies, the RAB, and others. OU -2C consists of IR Site 5 (Building 5, the Aircraft Rework Facility), IR Site 10 (Building 400, the Missile Rework Facility), and IR Site 12 (Building 10, the Power Plant). The Navy had published an earlier draft FS for OU -2C, but in consultation with the BCT decided to revise it to address important comments it received. Since the May 2009 draft FS was published, the Navy expanded the FS's scope to include cleanup of many potentially radiologically contaminated storm drains beneath Buildings 5 and 400. The FS's cost estimate to remove these storm drain lines (and potentially contaminated soil RRI, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Agenda Item #4-A ARRA 2 -2 -2011 Page 2 of 2 February 2, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting, January 6, 2011 Highlights and Analysis associated with them) adds more than $50 million to the soil clean -up cost estimates in the draft FS. As an alternative, the FS estimates the cost would be much less if institutional controls were utilized to maintain the buildings' floor slabs in perpetuity. Several RAB members expressed concern that institutional controls, such as deed restrictions and inspections, would not reliably prevent people from being exposed to the radiological contamination under the floor slabs in the future. To supplement this FS the Navy is in the process of preparing an FS Addendum to address cleanup of radiologically contaminated storm drain lines that are outside the buildings' footprints. These storm drain lines flow to Oakland Inner Harbor and the northeast corner of the Seaplane Lagoon. As with the draft FS, the revised draft FS develops several alternatives to clean up solvent - contaminated groundwater, principally under Building 5. Most alternatives would remediate groundwater to allow commercial /industrial reuse of Building 5 and areas immediately east and south of it, and to allow unrestricted reuse elsewhere within OU -2C. Conveyance Status and Redevelopment Planning Status Ms. Jennifer Ott, Alameda Deputy City Manager, and Ms. Amy Jo Hill, the Navy's Deputy Base Closure Manager, updated the RAB on various issues surrounding transfer of the former Naval Air Station, Alameda to the City and its subsequent redevelopment and reuse. Ms. Hill answered RAB members' questions about the Public Benefit Conveyance of the Sports Complex site, VA transfer parcels, wetlands, the Miller School, and North Housing. Ms. Ott described the City's effort to garner public input for Alameda Point redevelopment options. She distributed copies of community workbooks that had been used at the recent City workshops. RRI, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600