2011-06-01 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chambers
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1. ROLL CALL
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(A limited number of speakers 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; this section is limited to 15 minutes;
additional public comment will be addressed under Item 6.)
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one
motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board or a
member of the public.
3 -A. Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of April 6, 2011 and the
Special ARRA Meeting of May 17, 2011.
3 -B. Approve a No -Cost, Two -Year Lease Agreement with Friends of Alameda Theater,
Inc. for a Portion of Building 91 at Alameda Point
3 -C. Transmittal of May 18, 2011 Webinar Presentation.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5. ORAL REPORTS
5 -A. Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
Representative — Highlights of April 7 and May 5, 2011 RAB Meeting.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which
the governing body has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not
on the agenda; speakers not called under Item 2 may address the governing body
at this time.)
ARRA Agenda- June 1, 2011 Page 2
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
7 -A. Alameda Point Update
8. REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
10. 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, April 6, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore — 5.
Absent: None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(11-032) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 2, 2011, Minutes of the
Special Joint City Council/ARRA/Community Improvement Meetings held on March 15, 2011.
(*11-033) Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council and BSA Sea Scouts -
Ancient Mariner Regatta.
(*11-034) Approve the Proposed Sale of Two Grove Cranes to NRC Environmental Services.
(*11-035) Authorize the ARRA Port Manager, NRC Environmental Services, to Replace the Pier
2 Fendering System in an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000.
(*11-036) Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with Scott Electric for Pier 3
Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a Contract Not to Exceed $238,266 Using Remaining
ARRA Bond Funds.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
Chair Gilmore moved Item 7-A to be the first item discussed under the Regular Agenda
Items.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-037) Alameda Point Commercial Market Assessment.
The Deputy City Manager gave a presentation focusing on Alameda and East Bay market
conditions and the implications for Alameda Point and its redevelopment, strictly to provide a
market overview and not a development strategy, to determine the state of the market as it
exists today.
ARRA
Agenda Item #3-A
6-1-2011
John McManus, senior director of Cushman & Wakefield was available to answer questions.
Chair Gilmore expressed concern that implementing a long term lease strategy that is niche -
focused will take as long as implementing a development plan.
Mr. McManus replied that a reuse strategy is different than a build -to -suit strategy, stating that it
is important that it is clearly defined what is available. Advised a strategy to show potential
office buildings with a potential floor plan and be able to explain to potential tenants that all risks
have been removed and understand what can be delivered.
Chair Gilmore clarified that in order to effectively market Alameda Point, money needs to be
spent upfront to determine concept buildings or concept plans apart from what the master plan
ends up being. Mr. McManus agreed with Chair Gilmore, stating that there needs to be a clear
definition, and if it is left to the potential tenants to figure out, in an environment where there is
so much vacancy, chances are that Alameda Point will not get their attention unless it's a very
unique use with a big footprint.
Member Tam inquired about the element of competition in the marketplace, asking what kind of
recommended capital outlay is needed for Alameda Point to have a competitive edge. Mr.
McManus stated that the good competitive news is that redevelopment and enterprise zones
are not going to be competitors for Alameda Point.
Joe Ernst, SRM associates, added that there is so much obsolescence of space - there is no
longer a need for more plain office space -- and it is a function of understanding the market for
spaces and uses that cannot be developed elsewhere, and aligning with the right team to
develop it. Vice Chair Bonta inquired if there are market segments performing differently than
the market trends. Mr. Ernst replied that those segments with superior performance include life
sciences, such as the LBNL opportunity, light industrial, and R &D flex space.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated that the next step will involve doing .
more research and return to the Board with ideas or strategies.
Chair Gilmore thanked the Deputy City Manager— Development Services and staff for the
overview.
(11 -038) Review and Comment on Summary Report for the Community Planning Process for
Alameda Point.
The Planning Services Supervisor and the Deputy City Manager— Development Services gave a
presentation on the Community Planning Process.
Speakers: Elizabeth Krase Greene, Adam Gillitt, Nancy Gordon, Gretchen Lipow, Helen Sause,
Carol Gottstein, Susan Galleymore, Nancy Hird.
Chair Gilmore commented that she is looking forward to be able to discuss the financial
feasibility of the Alameda Point project with the public so the community can understand how
much it will cost to develop Alameda Point. In the past, since the developer was running a pro
forma, a lot of costs were not able to be shared with the public. Chair Gilmore stated that
certain costs are inescapable, no matter what is developed: infrastructure costs between $600M
- $800M.
Member Tam concurred with Chair Gilmore and added that economic underpinnings are critical
at Alameda Point. Member Tam and Chair Gilmore expressed their appreciation to staff and the
community for all their time and effort in the Community Planning Process.
5. ORAL REPORTS
(11-039) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative
— Highlights of March 3, 2011 RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed the San Francisco Estuary Regional
Monitoring program, a program that monitors 22 water sites in bay, and 47 sediment sites. The
RAB would like the program to take on one area of Alameda Point to monitor. The OU2A site,
adjacent to Encinal High School, was also discussed. Surface remediation was done, and final
remediation will be completed. Tomorrow's meeting (3/4) will include an update on the
Seaplane Lagoon.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-040) Update on Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Second Campus Request for
Qualifications.
The Deputy City Manager-Development Services gave a presentation on the LBNL Campus
opportunity.
Representatives from the development teams introduced themselves to the Council: Joe Ernst,
SRM; Mary Pampuch, Lankford & Associates, Inc.
Speakers: Robert Todd
Member Tam inquired whether any of the 21 applicants that had responded have the same type
of potential development partner in RFQ process, in particular inquired if Alameda's partners are
unique to Alameda.
The Deputy City Manager-Development Services responded that to her knowledge, the other
sites are already owned by developers or have already teamed with private property owners;
the other applicants did not go through an RFQ process for a developer like Alameda, and none
of the other teams are teamed with the other sites.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired when the announcement of the short list will be made and how short
is the short list. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services replied that the call can come
through at any time now and that three on the short list is reasonable. Member Tam inquired if
there was any value to engaging legislators. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services
stated that letters have been sent to Stark and Swanson, but recommends waiting until the short
list comes out before Alameda starts lobbying.
Chair Gilmore thanked staff for the update and thanked the representatives from the
development teams for attending and introducing themselves to the Board.
8. REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The meeting convened at 9:22 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore — 5.
Absent: None.
2. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11 -043) Approve Letter of Understanding with Mission Bay Development Group /Edgemoor
Real Estate Services as the Preferred Developer for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Second Campus at Alameda Point Selection Process.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services summarized the developer selection process
for the LBNL RFQ second campus, stating that on May 9, Alameda Point was one of six sites
selected for the short list, out of a total 20. As part of the short list/final selection process,
candidate sites are required to have a development team. The ARRA issued an RFQ for
developers on February 3`d and received seven responses. After an internal staff review of the
seven responses, staff interviewed five teams and short- listed three highly qualified firms:
Lankford & Associates with Phelps Development, Mission Bay Development Group (MBDG)
Tamed with Edgemoor Real Estate Services, and SRM Associates with BioMed Realty Trust,
Inc. Based on its internal review and selection process, staff decided to recommend the
MBDG /Edgemoor Team as the preferred developer for the Second Campus at Alameda Point.
Chair Gilmore asked staff and future developer to address the financial aspect of the project.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that, as part of the RFQ, LBNUUC plan
to self- finance the development but are also interested in considering third party financing.
There may be gaps, as it is not yet certain if LBNUUC will finance 100 %, but staff will work
creatively with LBNUUS to work out the finance details, adding that part of the submittals will be
cost estimates.
The MBDG /Edgemoor team introduced themselves to the Board and expressed their
excitement to be selected as the development team for the LBNL project: Seth Hamalian,
Managing Principal, Mission Bay Development Group, Phil Owen, President, Mission Bay
Development Group, and Steve Dell'Orto, Vice President, Clark Construction.
In response to Chair Gilmore's question about the financial aspect of the development, Mr.
Hamalian explained that the team came together as group due to their experience working with
UC to develop mechanisms for creative financing structures.
Member Johnson and Vice -Chair Bonta expressed that the community shares the team's
excitement, are looking forward to partnering with them and thanked the team for all the assets
brought to the project.
Member Tam inquired about key members and former Catellus employees on the development
team, requesting a highlight of the key members.
Mr. Hamalian stated that in addition to MBDG /Edgemoor, HDR Architects are involved from a
design standpoint, Edgemoor is the development arm of Clark Construction and involved on the
vertical side, Perkins & Will are involved in the design master planning, BKF Engineers on
infrastructure, and Treadwell & Rollo for environmental and geotechnical engineering. Mr.
Hamalian also stated that the team staff is comprised of approximately 15 former Catellus
employees.
Member deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta
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. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:50 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:
Re:
June 1, 2011
Approve a No-Cost Two-Year Lease Agreement with Friends of
Alameda Theater for a Portion of Building 91 at Alameda Point
BACKGROUND
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) governing Board approves
all Alameda Point leases that are requesting the rental fee be waived. The proposed
lease agreement with Friends of Alameda Theater is for twenty-four months with the
monthly rent waived.
DISCUSSION
Event Productions currently occupies the majority of Building 91 at Alameda Point. They
have been a tenant since July 2007 and occupy 30,000 square feet. Friends of Alameda
Theater will occupy a 10,000 square foot portion of the building for storage of props and
equipment. This space was previously leased to Alameda Civic Light Opera, also under
a rent waived agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact. This lease will not generate rental income during the term.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a no-cost two-year lease agreement with Friends of Alameda Theater for a
portion of Building 91 at Alameda Point.
es ectfully submitted,
J
er Ott
Deputy City Manager
By:
Nan tte Mocanu
Finance & Administration Manager
Exhibit: Site Map
ARRA
Agenda Item #3-B
6-1-2011
EXHIBIT
-r
ARRA
I Exhibit 1 to
Agenda Item #3-B
6-1-2011
Alameda Point
Financial Basics Webinar
Workshop Goals
• Explain how a basic financial pro forma works
and why it is important to the Alameda Point
process
• Present a working definition of financial
feasibility that will be refined over time
• Inform community about the costs of
redeveloping Alameda Point using General
Plan as an illustrative example
ARRA
Agenda Item #3-C
6-1-2011
Financial Pro Forma Basics
What Is a Financial Pro Forma?
• Comparison of sources of funds (e.g.,
revenues and financing) and uses of funds
(e.g., design and construction costs), over a
period of time
• Assessment of financial risk vs. reward
• Tool for measuring financial feasibility and
sensitivity to changes in key assumptions
Pro Forma Reflects Deal Structure
• Previous negotiations assumed "master
developer"
— Preparation of improved land for sale and lease
— No guaranteed return on expenses
• Future disposition strategy yet to be
determined
— Single master developer
— Multiple master developers
— Auction, etc.
• Structure of disposition affects format,
assumptions, and target feasibility measures
Why Is a Financial Pro Forma Important
to Alameda Point Planning Process?
• Realistic assessment of financial feasibility of
development improves likelihood of successfully
implementing Alameda Point project
• Informs planning process by evaluating tradeoffs
among the type and amount of development
(Le., revenues) and the type and amount of
infrastructure requirements and public benefits
(i.e., costs)
Why Is a Financial Pro Forma Important
to Alameda Point Planning Process?
• If a feasibility gap exists, it determines need for
public financing and/or changes to factors
affecting costs and revenues
• Tool for negotiating property conveyance and
disposition
— Land value with the Navy
— Land value, public benefits, and public financing with
future developer(s)
What Is a Working Definition of
Financial Feasibility?
• Alameda Point will need to attract private
sector funding in order to be successfully
implemented
• Private sector will require a return on
investment commensurate with the risk
presented by the project
• Revenues must exceed costs by a sufficient
amount and fast enough to achieve a return
on investment required by the private sector
What Is a Working Definition of
Financial Feasibility?
• Other factors important to the community
must be addressed, such as:
— Impacts to City budget;
— Transportation impacts;
— Project amenities that provide citywide benefits;
and
— Navy clean-up and conveyance requirements
• These other priorities require further
definition and will affect financial feasibility
Alameda Point Pro Forma Overview
• Sources of Funds
— Land sale or lease revenues
— Existing building lease and sale revenues
— Private financing (i.e., equity, loans)
— Public financing (e.g., redevelopment tax
increment, Mello Roos CFD)
Alameda Point Pro Forma Overview
• Uses of Funds
— Planning and predevelopment expenses
— Site preparation, infrastructure, and
transportation costs
— Mitigation of impacts to City budget
— Affordable housing program
— Renovation costs of existing buildings
— Community facility and benefit costs
— Management and operations costs
— Return on private sector investment
Other Pro Forma Considerations
• Assessments for Ongoing Costs
— Impacts to City budget (ARRA Resolution)
— Maintenance costs
— Transportation operations
• Development Risk
— Entitlement
— Cost
— Financing
— Market
Other Pro Forma Considerations
• Return on Investment
— Relationship to risk
— Internal rate of return and profit margin, etc.
Pro Forma Example:
Project with Feasibility Gap
:TARGET RETURN: MINIMUM IRR OF 15%
TOTAL
;SOURCES OF FUNDS
Land Sale Revenues 5325
iPublic Financing 50
TOTAL SOURCES r
$325 $0
. i .
$0 SO l $100 : $100 i $125
. so so sioo 1 sioo : $125
USES OF FUNDS
:Predevelopment Expenses $10 $5 $5 ' $0
Infrastructure Costs $200 $0 $0 $100
Community Benefits S60 .12 p1 s30
,TOTAL USES $270 $5 $5 $130
:NET BALANCE ; $55 ($5) ($5): ($130)
Measures of Feasibility
Internal Rate of Retum 7%
Profit Margin 20%
$0 $0 SO $0
5100 $0 so So
$30 SQL 0
$130 $0 $0 ; $0
($130), $100 $100 $125
* Revenues exceed costs (profit margin positive), but IRR does not meet
target return of 15%
Pro Forma Example:
Project with Public Financing
TARGET RETURN: MINIMUM IRR OF 15%
TOTAL
Year
2 3 4 5
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Land Sale Revenues • ° 5325 $0 li $0 , $100: $100 5125
Public Financing 575 SO 50 50 !; 1 525 525 525,
TOTAL SOURCES $400 r $0 r $0 $0 i $0 1 $125 ; $125 ' $150
'USES OF FUNDS
Predevelopment Expenses $10 $5 $5 $0 $0 $0 SO
Infrastructure Costs $200 50 $0 $100 i $100 $0 50 50
TOTAL USES $270 ; Community Benefits 560 ' S0 530 $30 50 50
NET BALANCE $130 ($5) ($5) ($130);($130) $125 $125 $150
'Measures of Feasibility
Internal Rate of Retum 16%
Profit Margin 48%'
Added $75 of public financing over years 5 thru 7 to meet target return of 15%
Pro Forma Example:
Project with Increased Revenues
TARGET RETURN: MINIMUM IRR OF 15%
TOTAL
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Land Sale Revenues
Public Financing
TOTAL SOURCES
USES OF FUNDS
Predevelopment Expenses!
Infrastructure Costs
:Community Benefits
:TOTAL USES $270
NET BALANCE _...$130 ..... (55) ;
5175 j $100 $125
SO $0 50 i
5175 $100 : $125 -:
50
5100 ' $125
Measures of Feasibility
Internal Rate of Retum
Profit Margin
18%
48 %!
* Increased revenues in year 5 by $75 to meet target return of 15%
Pro Forma Example:
Project with Decreased Costs
TARGET RETURN: MINIMUM IRR OF 15% : • ,
! , .
Year
TOTAL 1 . 2 : 3 4 ; 5 , 6 f 7
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Land Sale Revenues r 5325 ; ' : $0 , $0 ' $100 i $100 : $125
Public Financing ' SO : 50 III ' 51 : III > 50
...._ ....., ;
TOTAL SOURCES : $325 r $0 r $0 , $0 1 $0 $100 $100 , $125
USES OF FUNDS
Predevelopment Expenses 310 55 55 : $0 , $0 50 ; $0 50
Infrastructure Costs 5200 50 SO 5100 5100 : $0 50 SO
Community Benefits 5i.: 50 I $0 $15 I 112 1 50 50
TOTAL USES $225 55 $5 $100 5115 50 , 50 ' $0
NET BALANCE 5100 (55) (55); (5100): ($115) $100 5100 $125
Measures of Feasibility '
Internal Rate of Return 15%
Profit Margin ,
44% ,
* Decreased community benefit costs by $45 over years 3 and 4 to meet target
return of 15%
Questions on
Financial Pro Forma Basics
Alameda Point
Infrastructure Costs
Infrastructure Costs Outline
• Review Existing Infrastructure Conditions
• Discuss Proposed Infrastructure Systems
• Review Existing Site Constraints
• Discuss Anticipated Costs of the Required Infrastructure
• Discuss Optional Public Benefits and Associated Costs
Definition of Infrastructure
• Flood and Sea Level Rise Protection
® Utilities ( Storm Drain, Sanitary Sewer, Electrical, and Gas)
6 Streets
• Regional Transportation
• Parks and Open Space
Existing Navy Infrastructure
O Majority of utilities constructed over 60 years ago and approaching the end
of its service life
• Constructed and maintained by the Navy on an "as- needed" basis
• Not constructed to current standards and regulations
• Many utilities are located under structures or not within street corridors
• Varying degrees of deterioration
from age, weathering, subsidence,
sediment, etc.
• City of Alameda, EBMUD and AMP.
conduct on -going improvements
and repairs to maintain service to
lessees
• PG &E and EBMUD will not accept
the maintenance cost
responsibilities for the existing gas
and water systems
Existing Infrastructure
a Typical maintenance issues include:
- Minor Flooding
- Water Main Breaks
- Sanitary Sewer Repairs
- Street and Sidewalk Repairs
6 Examples of Recent Repair Costs
Burdened by the ARRA include:
- Water Main Repairs
($20 - $60k)
- Sewer Pipeline and Manhole
Repairs ($10 — $15k)
- Street Pothole Patching
($10 - $15k)
• Existing infrastructure is not capable
of supporting the redevelopment and
reuse of Alameda Point
Land Use Assumptions
2003 General Plan Amendment
• Big Whites Remain
® Building 5 Remains
O Relocate and Consolidate
Collaborative Housing
® Approximate Land Use Summary
- 2,000 Housing Units
- 2.3 Million SF of Commercial
Uses (Office, R &D, Retail, Etc.)
Backbone Infrastructure Assumptions
* Framework of Roadways and Utility
Corridors
. Provides Organized Structure for
Overall Reuse and Re- Development
• Maintains Similar Grid Pattern
Extending into the Surrounding
Neighborhoods
. Reinforces Original NAS Alameda
Framework
. Prepares Development Sites
Allowing for Flexibility of a Variety o
Land Uses
Backbone Infrastructure Costs Include:
. Site Preparation Including Demolition Where Appropriate
. Flood and Sea Level Rise Protection
- Grading
- Drainage
• Sanitary Sewer
• Potable and Recycled Water
• Electrical, Gas and Telecom (Dry Utilities)
• On -Site Streets
. Off -Site Street Improvements
• Regional Transportation Improvements
• Parks and Open Space
• Contingency, Construction Management, Professional Services, Fees, Etc.
Other Costs Not Included
® Land Acquisition
• On -Site / In -Tract Infrastructure
• Vertical Building Construction
• On -Going Maintenance and Operation Costs to Achieve Fiscal Neutrality
• Impact Fees (i.e., State School Fees)
Site Preparation
• Demolish and Dispose of Non - Historic Structures
O Demolish and Recycle Existing Pavement and Concrete
i Remove / Abandon Existing Utilities
® Site Clearing and Preparation
• Site Preparation Costs = $120 Million
Flood Protection and Drainage
Existing Conditions
« Existing Site Drainage
• Existing Flood Protection
Features
• 100 Year Tide Areas of
Inundation
• Projected Sea Level Rise
Flood Protection and Drainage
Proposed Concept
« Provide Protection from 100 Year Tide Plus 18" of Sea Level Rise and
Account for Wave Run -Up
. Allow for Future Adaptive Measures to Protect Against Larger Amounts of
Sea Level Rise up to 55"
• Alternatives Explored
- Elevate Site
- Improve Perimeter System
- Hybrid
Flood Protection and Drainage
Proposed Concept — Improved Perimeter System
« Raise Seawalls and Rock Slopes
• Allocate for Future Expansion of
Perimeter Features
« Address Geotechnical
Constraints (Liquefaction)
« Maintain Majority of
Existing Elevations Interior to
the Site
« Install New Storm Drain System
with Water Quality Treatment
« Flood Protection, Site Grading
and Drainage Costs = $ 170
Million
Sanitary Sewer
« System of New Pipelines and
Lift Stations
• Convey Wastewater to
Existing Pump Station 1
• Utilize Existing Off -Site
Infrastructure to Convey
Flows to EBMUD Treatment
Plant
« Improve Capacity of Siphons
at the Estuary Crossing
« Sanitary Sewer Costs = $55
Million
Potable Water
• System of New
Distribution Pipelines
• Providing Projected
Demands and Fire Flows
. Connects to Existing Water
Mains in Main Street
. Potable Water Costs = $12
Million
Recycled Water
. System of New Distribution Pipelines Required by EBMUD
• Connect to the Future EBMUD Recycled Water System
. Provide Irrigation Water and Other Potential Permitted Uses
• Recycled Water Costs = $8 Million
Dry Utilities
(Electric, Gas and Telecom)
• System of New Facilities
• Meeting Current Standards and Regulations
• Upgrade Existing Electrical Sub-Station
• Dry Utility Costs = $25 Million
On-Site Streets
• Construct New On-Site Streets
• Rebuild Existing Streets within
Historic Areas
• Construct Bike Circulation Routes,
Pedestrian Improvements, and a
Truck Route
• Implement Other Necessary Traffic
Improvements
- Traffic Signals
- Traffic Circles
- Traffic Calming
• On-Site Street Costs =
$55 Million
Off -Site Street Improvements
• Implement Off -Site Street
Improvements to Support
Redevelopment
- Main Street
- Mitchell Mosley Avenue
Extension
- Stargell Avenue Completion
- Mariner Square Drive /
Marina Village Parkway
and Park and Ride
- Cross Alameda Trail
Improvements
- RAMP Bike Lane and
Median Improvements
• Off-Site Street Costs = $65
Million
Regional Transportation Improvements
Regional Transportation Improvements Based on Previous Studies, GPA and
Community Workshop Include:
• Shuttle System
• Transit Center
• Bus Rapid Transit
• Ferry Terminal
• Transportation Demand Management (Establish Monitoring Program)
• Access Improvements in Oakland
• Regional Transportation Improvement Costs = $50 - 65 Million
Parks and Open Space
• Provide Neighborhood Parks and
Open Space Areas
• Provide Initial Improvements to
Regional Facilities Including
- Sports Complex
- Sea Plane Lagoon Frontage
• Parks and Open Space Costs = $80
Million
Backbone Infrastructure Costs
(Without Public Benefits and Other Costs)
• Site Preparation $ 120 M
• Flood / Sea Level Rise Protection & Drainage $ 170 M
• Utilities (Sewer, Waters and Dry Utilities) $ 100 M
• On -Site Streets $ 55 M
• Off-Site Street Improvements $ 65 M
• Regional Transportation Improvements $ 60 M
• Parks and Open Space $ 80 M
TOTAL $ 650 M
Public Benefits
O Enhanced Sports Complex ($15 - $30 M)
B Enhanced Sea Plane Lagoon ($5 - $10 M)
• Additional Passive Open Space (To Be Determined)
• Marina ($5 - $10 M)
• Library ($9 - $15 M)
• Subsidies for Historic Preservation (Undefined)
• Subsidies for Affordable Housing (To Be Determined)
Questions on
Alameda Point
Infrastructure Costs
Next Steps
Next Steps
• Upcoming Workshops
— Transportation Workshop: May 26th 6:30 pm to
8:30 pm — Mastick Senior Center
— Sustainability Workshop: June 14th 6:30 pm to
8:30 pm — O'Club
— Financial Workshop: TBD
Next Steps
• Preparation and Evaluation of Alternatives
• Monthly Updates to ARRA
• Review by Community and Boards and
Commissions
• Other Ongoing Community Involvement
• LBNL Second Campus Process
—July/August 2011 community meeting
— Other shows of community support
— November decision on preferred site
Questions
Russell Resources, Inc.
environmental management
Alameda Point RAB Meeting on April 7, 2011
Highlights and Analysis
RAB members present: Dale Smith (Community Co- Chair), Richard Bangert (new member),
Carol Gottstein, M.D. (new member), Daniel Hoy (new member), Joan Konrad, James Leach,
Kurt Peterson, 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 ongoing 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 At IR Site 35 (EDC -5 (1) recreational area near Main Street north entrance and (2)
location of former elevated water tanks) is undergoing pre- excavation sampling, site
excavation, confirmation sampling, site restoration, and associated field activities.
o Performance groundwater monitoring is ongoing to assess the effectiveness of
remediation at IR Site 6 (Building 41, Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Facility) and IR
Site 16 (Shipping Container Storage Area), in the southeast corner of Alameda Point.
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 Radiological characterization surveying and sampling will begin in May at IR Site 32
(Northwestern Ordinance Storage Area)
o Pre - design sediment sampling will begin in May at IR Site 24 (Pier 1 and Pier 2
Sediments).
o Construction of six -phase heating dual cell array for pilot testing at IR Site 21 (Ship
Fitting and Engine Repair, Building 162) is in progress.
o Dredging of the Seaplane Lagoon: see following presentation summary.
IR Site 17, Seaplane Lagoon — Update on Remedial Action
The dredging component of the remedial action for the Seaplane Lagoon is about 77 percent
completed as of April 6, 2011 (approximately 40,000 cubic yards). Actual dredging got
underway at the end of January 2011 and was to have been completed by March 15, 2011 to
avoid risks to the least terns. For various reasons, the dredging is not progressing as quickly as
planned. Although the Navy has received permission from US Fish and Wildlife Service to
continue dredging until the least terns reappear, the dredging likely will not be completed by
then. At a minimum, the Navy anticipates completing dredging of Seaplane Lagoon's northeast
corner before suspending operations. Dredging of the northwest corner will be postponed until
after the least terns have departed in the autumn. Management of dredged sediments in the
RRI, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.
ARRA
Agenda Item #5 -A
6 -1 -2011
Page 2of2
June 1, 2011
Alameda Point RAB Meeting, April 7, 2011
Highlights and Analysis
drying beds on the north side of Seaplane Lagoon will continue even while dredging operations
are suspended.
Tour of Alameda Point Remediation Sites
Instead of the July RAB meeting, the RAB decided to tour remediation sites that month, as was
done last year. The bus tour will take place on Saturday morning, July 16, 2011. Sites proposed
for inclusion in the tour are IR Site 1 (1943 -1956 Disposal Area), IR Site 2 (West Beach Landfill
and Associated Wetlands), IR Site 5 (Aircraft Rework Facility, Buildings 5 and 5A), IR Site 6
(Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Building 41), IR Site 10 (Missile Rework
Operations, Building 400), and IR Site 17 (Seaplane Lagoon). The Navy will announce the
actual itinerary in the near future.
RRI, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600
Russell Resources, Inc.
environmental management
Alameda Point RAB Meeting on May 5, 2011
Highlights and Analysis
RAB members present: Dale Smith (Community Co- Chair), Richard Bangert, Carol Gottstein,
M.D, Daniel Hoy, George Humphreys, Joan Konrad, James Leach, Kurt Peterson, 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 ongoing 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 At IR Site 35 (EDC -5 (1) recreational area near Main Street north entrance and (2)
location of former elevated water tanks) is undergoing pre- excavation sampling, site
excavation, confiiination sampling, site restoration, and associated field activities.
o Performance groundwater monitoring is ongoing to assess the effectiveness of
remediation at IR Site 6 (Building 41, Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Facility) and IR
Site 16 (Shipping Container Storage Alta), in the southeast corner of Alameda Point.
o Radiological status surveys of selected buildings to rule out potential radiological
residues are ongoing.
o A radiological characterization survey is being conducted for surface and near - surface
soil at IR Site 32, which is immediately east of the IR Site 1 landfill, along Oakland Inner
Harbor.
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 Radiological characterization surveying and sampling will begin in May at IR Site 32
(Northwestern Ordinance Storage Area)
o Pre - design sediment sampling will begin is underway at IR Site 24 (Pier 1 and Pier 2
Sediments).
o Construction of six -phase heating dual cell array for pilot testing at IR Site 21 (Ship
Fitting and Engine Repair, Building 162) is in progress, including installation of power
lines, assembly of equipment, and driving of sheet piles.
o Dredging of the northeast corner of Seaplane Lagoon was completed in early May, as
was further dredging of the debris piles area along Seaplane Lagoon's northern bulkhead.
Dredging of the northwest corner of Seaplane Lagoon is postponed until after the
California least terns depart later in the year. Drying and off - hauling of the sediments
already dredged will continue through this summer.
OU -2B Alternative Roundtable
The Navy has issued its second revision of the Draft Feasibility Study for OU -2C, the
industrialized area around the east entrance of the former NAS Alameda. The Navy presented
RRI, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600
Page 2 of 2
June 1, 2011
Alameda Point RAB Meeting, May 5, 2011
Highlights and Analysis
clean -up alternatives that the BCT (BRAC Cleanup Team: the Navy and the environmental
regulatory agencies) will choose from to restore both soil and groundwater to residential -reuse
quality. Excavation with off -site disposal of the relatively small amount of contaminated soil is
the soil clean -up alternative most likely to be selected, mainly to address metals and heavy
hydrocarbon residues.
For groundwater, the Navy presented several remedial alternatives, most of which are variations
on the in -situ treatment approach: in -situ chemical oxidation, in -situ thermal treatment, enhanced
in -situ biodegradation, and permeable reactive barriers. The groundwater treatment alternatives
consist of an initial active treatment phase followed by a protracted phase, lasting several
decades, during which the remedial goals for drinking -water quality are achieved through
monitored natural attenuation (degradation, dispersion, dilution, etc.). RAB members asked
about whether land overlying areas of in -situ groundwater treatment would be available for reuse
after the initial active- remediation phase, without waiting decades for remedial goals to be
reached. The Navy explained that its continued access to groundwater monitoring wells must be
ensured, but that this is not necessarily incompatible with redevelopment. The Shinsei Gardens
Project was offered as an example of health - protective redevelopment even though treatment of
the underlying groundwater plume is still in progress. In this case, the Navy and the developer
worked cooperatively to locate wells and development features so as not to interfere with each
other.
Format of RAB Agenda
With this meeting, the RAB tried holding a free -form comment period at the beginning of the
meeting, instead of only at the end. The approval of last month's minutes was shifted to the end
of the meeting. This format appeared to work well, and allowed public comments to come
forward without waiting for the end of the meeting when time is often short.
RRI, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600
Item 7 -A. Alameda Point Update
is an oral report
City Council
Agenda Item #7 -A
R -1 -11