2006-06-07 Special CIC PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY - - - JUNE 7, 2006 - - - 5:31 P.M.
Time: Wednesday, June 7, 2006, 5:31 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: Community Improvement Commission v. Cocores
Development Company
4. Announcement of action taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY - - - JUNE 7, 2006 - - - 7:01 P.M.
Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by the Commission may speak for a maximum of 3
minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission.
Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish
to speak on an agenda item.
ROLL CALL
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 -A. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute
a First Amendment, adding $96,225 and extending the term six
months, to Agreement with ERM -West, Inc. to evaluate RAH
Contamination on a portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply
Center property. (Development Services)
1 -B. Recommendation to approve a Contract with Strategy Research
Institute, Inc. for $14,500 to conduct a survey of local
residents for the update of the City of Alameda Economic
Development Strategic Plan. (Development Services)
AGENDA ITEM
2 -A. Recommendation to reject the Sole Bid and authorize a 60 -day
negotiation with Qualified Contractors for the Restoration and
Rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater. (Development
Services)
ADJOURNMENT
Beverly Joh on JCh.li
Community Imp vement Commission
City of Alameda
Interoffice Memorandum
June 6, 2006
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Community Improvement Commission
FROM: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
RE: Authorization for the Executive Director to Execute a First Amendment, adding $96,225
and Extending the Term Six Months, to an Agreement with ERM -West, Inc. to Evaluate
PAH Contamination on a Portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Property
Background
On November 15, 2005, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved a $194,320, seven -
month Agreement with ERM -West, Inc. (ERM) to evaluate the feasibility of lifting a covenant prohibiting
residential reuse on a portion of the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) property. The Navy and
the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) placed the covenant on the property due to the
presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's).
ERM has concluded its initial round of sampling to determine the nature and extent of PAH's in the soil.
Based on those results and a meeting with DTSC staff, additional sampling and preparation of a Human
Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) are required. The attached First Amendment to the Agreement with
ERM will add $96,225, for a total Agreement amount of $290,545, and extend the term of the Agreement
through December 31, 2006, to complete the required work to determine the extent and cost of remediation
necessary to lift the covenant and allow residential reuse.
Discussion
ERM's work to date included negotiating a sampling approach with DTSC to determine whether soil in the
subject area meets DTSC's criteria for residential reuse. ERM collected and analyzed over 300 soil
samples comparing existing soil conditions with residential -use thresholds for PAH's and naphthalene
throughout the study area and for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) and cadmium in a smaller sub -area.
Of the over 300 samples taken, PAH concentrations suitable for residential reuse were exceeded at only 20
locations, or in less than 10% of the samples in the 25 -acre area. Naphthalene and PCB's exceedances
occurred at one location each.
As agreed to with DTSC, for each location where residential levels were exceeded, additional sampling
around that area will be done in a follow -up field effort. In addition, DTSC has requested that Alameda
prepare HHRA's for both residential reuse and for construction and utility workers. The HHRA is an
analysis of the data gathered from the field samples that determines, based on an analytical model,
maximum levels of contamination that are safe for residents over the long -term and for construction
workers. The HHRA will form the basis of any required remediation. Lastly, ERM will prepare a focused
Feasibility Study (FS) to be used by DTSC when evaluating the request to lift the covenant precluding
Report 1 -A
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Special CIC Meeting
6 -7 -06
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Community Improvement Commission
June 6, 2006
Pg. 2
residential reuse. This focused FS will be designed to fit with the Navy's base -wide FS, which is currently
underway.
The follow -up work effort described above is the basis for the First Amendment to the Agreement with
ERM. Approximately $66,000, or almost 70%, of the $96,225 budget will be spent on the required
additional fieldwork. The remaining funds will be used to prepare the HHRA's and the FS. At the
conclusion of this work, the scope and cost of the actual remediation necessary to lift the covenant
precluding residential reuse will be known. Any contract to undertake remediation work will be brought
before the CIC at a later date.
Fiscal Impact
The proposed amendment will be funded from Bayport project revenues pursuant to the DDA. It is
anticipated that these funds will be reimbursed from future land sale proceeds.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the CIC authorize the Executive Director to execute a First Amendment, adding
$96,225 and extending the term six months, to an Agreement with ERM -West, Inc. to evaluate PAH
contamination on a portion of the FISC property.
Attachment
Respect,; ly submitted,
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
By: t ebbie Potter
Base Reuse & Community Development Manager
G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp\DebbiePotter \Staff Reports \6 -6 -06 ERM 1st Amend.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT,
This Amendment of the Agreement, entered into this 6th day of June 2006, by and between
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION of the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a public body
(hereinafter referred to as "CIC "), and ERM, a California corporation, whose address is 1777 Botelho
Drive, Suite 260, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with
reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. On November 15, 2005, an agreement was entered into by and between CIC and
Consultant (hereinafter "Agreement ").
B. CIC and Consultant desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as follows:
1. Paragraph 1 ( "Term ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows:
"The term of this agreement shall commence on the 15th day of November 2005, and
shall terminate on the 31st day of December 2006, unless terminated earlier as set forth
herein."
2. Paragraph 2 ( "Services to be Performed ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows:
"Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibits "A" and "A -1 ",
which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference."
3. Paragraph 3 ( "Compensation to Consultant ") of the Agreement is modified to read as
follows:
•
"Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in
the amount not to exceed $194,320 (Exhibit `B ") and in the amount not to exceed
$96,225 (Exhibit `B -1 ").
4. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement
shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be
executed on the day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT
ERM
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION
. rf1 G 1k&L E. 0.011-4...)j R &. Debra Kurita
Title: pq.,Q (,�
ERM
June 2006
Executive Director
Page 1 of 2
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
De ie Potter, Manager
Base Reuse & Community Development
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
9eue'/
Teresa Highsmith
Assistant City Attorney
E/M
June 2006
Page 2of2
Exhibit "A -1"
24 March 2006
Ms. Debbie Potter
Base Reuse & Redevelopment Manager
City of Alameda, California
Development Services
950 West Mall Square, Room 215
Alameda, CA 94501 -7552
Subject: Cost Proposal
Follow -Up Investigation and Data Analysis,
Strategy Development and Implementation for
Removal of Proposed Residential Reuse Restrictions,
Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Oakland,
Alameda Facility/ Alameda Annex (FISCA)
Dear Debbie:
ERM -West, Inc. (ERM) presents to the City of Alameda (City) this
proposal addressing additional investigation and data evaluation tasks
pursuant to findings from the first phase of investigation, which were
documented in our 20 February 2006 Draft Data Transmittal to the
Berkeley Office of Military Facilities, Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC). These follow -up activities were discussed during our
1 March 2006 meeting with DTSC, and were formalized via email from
Mr. Henry Wong of DTSC on 7 March 2006.
Generally, these follow -up activities include:
• Performing step -out sampling in 5,000- square -foot grids adjacent to
grids where exceedances of applicable regulatory standards for
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), specifically
benzo(a)pyrene equivalents (B[a]PE); naphthalene; polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs); and/ or cadmium were observed.
Environmental
Resources
Management
1777 Botelho Drive
Suite 260
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 946 -0455
(925) 946 -9968 (fax)
ERM
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March 2006
Page 2
• Performing a screening level risk assessment addressing potential
exposures for future residential receptors at the site.
• Performing a baseline risk assessment addressing potential exposures
for future construction /utility worker receptors.
• Developing a focused feasibility study (FS) addressing remedial
alternatives for potential constituents of concern (in this case, B(a)PE,
naphthalene, PCBs, and /or cadmium) that interfaces with the U.S.
Navy's Basewide FS and / or Basewide Proposed Plan in evaluating
future land use restrictions for the parcels under consideration in this
study.
Although not specifically part of the scope of work proposed herein,
DTSC has noted that the land use suitability for the hospital footprint
will have to be determined once the hospital has been demolished, the
soils have been adequately investigated, contaminated areas (if any) have
been removed, appropriate land use covenants on soil management have
been recorded (as necessary), and a land use covenant requiring
engineering controls for potential vapor intrusion has been recorded.
ERM will be happy to work with the City in implementing an
appropriate study for that area when demolition plans for the hospital
have been formalized.
This proposal presents the following:
• A brief description of investigation background and findings;
• A detailed approach to implementing the tasks described above;
• A summary of proposed costs; and
• A tentative progress and reporting schedule.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
ERM completed the first phase of this investigation in December 2005 in
accordance with the 14 November 2005 Workplan for Focused Investigation
of PAHs, PCBs, and Cadmium in Soil (ERM, 2005). As you will recall, the
objectives for the study were to:
• Develop with DTSC an appropriate sampling strategy for evaluating
PAHs in the two areas proposed for prospective residential reuse;
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March,2006
Page 3
• Negotiate with DTSC, as appropriate, a remedial action level for
B(a)PE that considers exposure risk under an unrestricted residential
reuse scenario; and
• Collect data for PAHs in soils sufficient to (1) augment the Navy's FS
in demonstrating that the specific parcels of interest are suitable for
unrestricted residential reuse, and (2) determine the response actions
that may be necessary to render the entirety of the specific parcels
suitable for unrestricted residential reuse.
Based on our negotiations with DTSC, it was determined that further
evaluation of PCBs and cadmium in a portion of the former Installation
Restoration Site 02 (IR02) would be necessary to determine if that area
might be suitable for residential reuse as well.
As documented in our 20 February 2006 Draft Data Transmittal, and
confirmed during our 1 March 2006 meeting with DTSC, exceedances of
one or more of the constituents of concern were identified at one or more
depths at approximately 20 locations across the site. With the exception
of one location exceeding the applicable regulatory goal for naphthalene
(the USEPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goal), and another
exceeding the goal for PCBs, all of the identified exceedances were
associated with DTSC's maximum allowable B(a)PE concentration for
residential reuse of 1.0 milligram per kilogram (mg /kg), or part per
million (ppm).
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
The following proposed scope of work for follow -up investigation and
data evaluation is based primarily on the results of our discussions with
DTSC on 1 March 2006, and on Henry Wong's follow -up communication
via email on 7 March 2006.
Additional Field Investigation
The proposed follow -up, step -out sampling will include permitting,
utilities clearance, soil sampling, surveying, and data analysis phases.
Each of these aspects is addressed below.
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March 2006
Page 4
Permitting
ERM will apply for and obtain the necessary drilling permit from
Alameda County prior to implementing the work. All conditions of
Alameda County's permits will be met during implementation of the
field investigation. We envision that the permit will represent an
extension (with additional fees) to the existing permit under which the
first phase of field investigation was conducted.
Site/Utilities Clearance
After obtaining the appropriate permit from Alameda County, but prior
to implementing field investigation activities, ERM will coordinate access
to the proposed sampling locations through the City and ProLogis and
clear those locations for potential underground utilities. Based on
observations made during the previous phase of investigation as well as
discussions with representatives of ProLogis, it is our current
understanding that demolition activities have been substantially
completed in the areas that require sampling. The proposed scope of
work presented herein assumes full access to all sampling locations.
As required by law, we will make appropriate notification to
Underground Services Alert. In addition, we will contract with a
licensed underground utilities surveyor, who will clear each of the
proposed locations. As necessary, we will move locations to avoid
impacting potential underground utilities.
Field Investigation
Based on our knowledge of site conditions and our experience with the
last phase of investigation, we anticipate using direct -push technology to
collect additional soil samples. Consistent with our previous approach
and in accordance with our ongoing discussions with DTSC, the
proposed sampling protocol involves collecting discrete soil samples
from up to three depths at each location. Also consistent with our prior
approach, we will use proposed final grade elevations provided by
ProLogis as a benchmark against which sampling depths will be
determined.
Consistent with our findings from the initial investigation, as
documented in the Draft Data Transmittal (Figure 4), the next phase of the
investigation will require 53 additional sampling locations. These
locations are based on the following exceedances:
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March 2006
Page 5
• Twenty -four (24) exceedances of the B(a)PE limit of 1.0 mg /kg at 20
different sampling locations. As indicated in Figure 4 of the Draft
Data Transmittal, this results in an additional 50 sampling locations
(adjacent grids). Based on the strategy developed with DTSC, as
described below, samples will be collected at these locations from
one, two, or three depths, resulting in approximately 95 total samples
collected for PAH analysis.
• One naphthalene exceedance of the cleanup goal of 1.7 mg /kg, in the
2.0 -foot sample at ERM -B -115. Samples from the five adjacent grid
nodes (from two depths, based on the strategy below) will be
analyzed for naphthalene, for a total of 10 samples. ERM -B -115 also
exceeded the B(a)PE limit of 1.0 mg /kg, so no additional sampling
will be required.
• One PCB exceedance (Aroclor 1260) of the cleanup goal of 1.0 mg /kg
in the 4.0 -foot sample at ERM -B -7. Samples from the six adjacent
nodes will be analyzed for PCBs at three depths for a total of 18
samples. Tln ee of the locations already require sampling for PAHs;
therefore only three additional sampling locations will be required.
• There were no exceedances of the residential cadmium cleanup goal
of 12 mg /kg, so no further sample analysis for that constituent will be
required.
Based on our discussion with the DTSC on 1 March 2006, and confirmed
in Henry Wong's follow -up email, samples will be collected at each un-
sampled grid adjacent to a grid where one or more of the exceedances
noted above were identified. During the initial investigation, samples
were collected at 0.5,1.5 -2.0, and 3.5 -4.0 feet below ground surface (bgs)
relative to presumed final grade (see discussion below) at each location.
Where one or more exceedances were identified in the 3.5 -4.0 feet bgs
sample within a grid, samples will be collected from all three depths (i.e.,
0.5, 1.5 -2.0, and 3.5 -4.0 feet bgs) in each of the adjacent grid nodes.
Likewise, where the deepest sample in which one or more exceedances
were identified was at 1.5 -2.0 feet bgs, only the two shallow depths (i.e.,
0.5 and 1.5 -2.0 feet bgs) will be sampled in the adjacent grid nodes.
Finally, where exceedances were identified only at the 0.5 foot bgs depth,
only one sample, at 0.5 foot bgs, will be collected in the adjacent grid
nodes.
This sampling strategy results in the proposed collection of samples as
follows:
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March 2006
Page 6
• Ninety -five (95) samples will be analyzed for PAHs with selective ion
monitoring (SIM) using USEPA Method 8270/8310 to ensure method
detection limits are low enough to provide results that can be
compared with the applicable DTSC screening and maximum levels;
• Ten (10) samples will be analyzed for naphthalene using USEPA
Method 8260B; and
• Six (6) samples will be analyzed for PCBs using USEPA Method
8082A.
Samples will be preserved in accordance with standard practices and
transferred under appropriate chain -of- custody documentation to Entech
Analytical, a state - certified analytical laboratory, where they will be
analyzed for the constituents described above. Entech performed the
analytical work for samples collected during the previous phase of
investigation.
Surveying
From the onset of this project, DTSC has emphasized the importance of
comparing target sampling depths to presumed final grades. Consistent
with our approach during the previous phase of investigation, it will be
necessary to document the location and elevation of each sample
collected. Following completion of the soil sampling, all soil boring
locations will be surveyed by a California- licensed land surveyor. To
ensure that the sampling depths are relative to final grade elevations, the
surveyed elevations will be compared to presumed final grade
elevations, based on data provided to ERM by ProLogis. Every effort
will be made to collect samples representative of 0.5,1.5 -2.0, and 3.5-4.0 -
foot depths relative to final grade. As necessary and appropriate,
additional sampling may be warranted, and will be implemented as soon
as possible following review of the survey data.
We anticipate generating a limited amount of investigation- derived
waste (in addition to that generated previously), consisting primarily of
soil cuttings and decontamination rinsate. These materials will be
maintained in appropriately labeled drums at the site (alongside the
previous materials) pending completion of laboratory analytical work.
We will then profile all waste materials and have them removed and
disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March 2006
Page 7
Data Analysis
Upon completing the field investigation and receiving all analytical data
from the laboratory, ERM will process and evaluate the data consistent
with our approach during the previous phase of investigation. This will
include updating the draft tables and figures prepared for data analysis
during the first phase of investigation, in anticipation that they will be
incorporated into the project documentation ultimately provided to
DTSC and the Navy. The project reporting phase has already been
scoped and approved under the City's previous authorization. Only the
incremental cost associated with the additional evaluation is included in
this authorization request.
Risk Analysis
Based on the specific issues raised during our 1 March 2006 meeting and
Henry Wong's follow -up email of 7 March 2006, we understand that it
will be necessary to evaluate potential risks from existing constituents of
concern to future receptors at the site. Specifically, we have agreed to
evaluate the risks associated with future residents and construction/
utility workers. In that the perceived risks to these two groups of
receptors differ, we have addressed with DTSC performing separate risk
analyses, as described below.
Prior to implementing the various risk analyses referenced below, ERM
will prepare a focused workplan addressing our proposed approach, and
will submit it to DTSC for review and approval. The purpose of the
workplan will be to demonstrate to DTSC ERM's understanding of the
background and DTSC documentation (referenced below) addressing
risk analysis pertinent to site conditions, and to define the steps we will
take to develop a defensible risk analysis addressing future receptors
under a residential reuse scenario for the site. We will provide a draft
version of the workplan to the City and Mr. Peter Russell of Russell
Resources for review and comment. Upon receiving input from the City
and Peter, we will finalize for submittal to DTSC.
Screening -Level Risk Assessment for Residential Receptors
To evaluate potential risks to future residential receptors, ERM has
proposed to DTSC that we perform a screening -level risk analysis. As
directed by DTSC, this analysis will be performed in accordance with a
memorandum provided to the Office of Military Facilities entitled,
Recommended Outline for Using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March 2006
Page 8
Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals in Screening Risk Assessments at
Military Facilities (DTSC Office of Scientific Affairs, 28 October 1994).
DTSC has provided this memorandum to ERM for its consideration
while scoping and implementing the screening -level risk analysis. DTSC
has noted that, in implementing the analysis pursuant to the
memorandum, it is important that risks and hazards are summed for all
chemicals and exposure pathways.
DTSC has also advised ERM to incorporate comments specific to risk
analysis presented in DTSC's Human and Ecological Risk Division
(HERD) 6 December 2005 comments on ERM's 14 November 2005
Workplan. HERD has indicated that all complete exposure pathways
must be evaluated, noting that USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals
do not include exposure via vapor intrusion to indoor air.
Taking into consideration the documentation referenced by DTSC, ERM
will prepare a screening -level risk analysis documenting potential risks
to future residents at the site. This analysis, along with the baseline risk
assessment addressed below, will be incorporated into the project report
previously authorized by the City.
Baseline Risk Assessment for Future Construction/Utility Workers
During our 1 March 2006 meeting, DTSC indicated that risks to future
construction/ utility workers from constituents of concern should be
evaluated. This is based on the known presence of the nearby "Benzene
Plume," which is also known to contain naphthalene, and on the
recognition that institutional controls preventing extraction and use of
ground water and the proposed engineering controls requiring vapor
barriers for new buildings will not address dermal contact for
utility /construction workers during site development activities (ERM
notes that we do not accept as a fact that vapor barriers should/ will be
required under homes; this has just been discussed by DTSC as a
potential remedial option for the site). DTSC also notes that, as
compared to residential receptors, construction workers are assumed to
have higher soil ingestion, dermal contact rates, and vapor inhalation
from volatile constituents in soil, soil vapor, and ground water.
ERM will prepare the baseline risk assessment to evaluate
construction/ utility worker receptors in accordance with the guidance
provided by DTSC. The assessment and related documentation will be
incorporated into the project report previously authorized by the City.
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March 2006
Page 9
Feasibility Study
When this overall project was originally scoped, it was hoped that the
findings and associated data could be interfaced with the Navy's data
and included in the Navy's Basewide FS for PAHs and /or its Basewide
Proposed Plan. It has become apparent that the timing for finalizing this
study does not coincide well with the Navy's schedule. As a result,
DTSC has suggested that the City develop a focused FS addressing
potential remedial alternatives specific to the proposed residential
redevelopment of the selected FISCA parcels.
As part of the project documentation prepared for this investigation,
ERM will prepare the FS, with a focus on the following issues raised by
DTSC:
• Remediation of soil at locations exceeding DTSC's site - specific
residential cleanup targets for PCBs, B(a)PE, and naphthalene of 1.0,
1.0, and 1.7 mg /kg, respectively;
• Recordation of a land use covenant requiring proper soil
management (i.e., characterization, storage, disposal, etc.) for soils
between final grade and 4 feet bgs; and
• Recordation of a land use covenant requiring appropriate engineering
controls (e.g., vapor barriers, sub -slab depressurization systems, etc.,
if appropriate to site conditions) for future structures (i.e., homes)
where the potential exists for vapor (i.e., benzene, naphthalene,
and / or other volatiles) intrusion into indoor air.
The primary criteria against which remedial alternatives will be
evaluated include technical implementability, public and regulatory
acceptance, and cost. We envision that the FS will represent a portion of
the project report to be prepared and submitted, along with the collective
findings from both phases of investigation and the results of the
screening -level and baseline risk assessments, to DTSC and the Navy.
We anticipate that the findings will factor into the Navy's Basewide
Proposed Plan and Record of Decision in regard to proposed actions (i.e.,
institutional controls) that would apply to the proposed residential
development.
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March 2006
Page 10
Coordination with DTSC and the Navy
ERM understands that resolving all issues that arise from completion of
this investigation will require close coordination both with DTSC and the
Navy. Our scope of work includes allowance for the following meetings:
• One 4 -hour meeting (plus travel time) for Mike Quillin and a Senior
Scientist with representatives of the City to go over draft findings and
develop a strategy for approaching DTSC and the Navy with the
results. The meeting would be held at City Hall West. Additionally,
our Senior Risk Assessor will attend via conference call.
• One 4 -hour meeting (plus travel time) for Mike Quillin and a Senior
Scientist with representatives of the City and DTSC to present the
draft findings and coordinate resolution of all remaining details. The
meeting would be held at DTSC's offices in Berkeley. Additionally,
our Senior Risk Assessor will attend via conference call.
• Two 2 -hour conference calls and / or meetings (plus travel time) with
the City, DTSC, and the Navy to review project results and develop a
strategy for interfacing our findings with the Navy's Basewide FS
and /or Proposed Plan. If this meeting is held in person, we assume it
will be at City Hall West.
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March 2006
Page 11
PROPOSED BUDGET & SCHEDULE
ERM will complete the proposed scope of work on a time - and - materials,
not -to- exceed basis, consistent with the costs summarized in the
following table and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth
in the Consultant Agreement executed between the Cominunity
Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (CIC) and ERM.
The costs presented in the table include all ERM labor and expenses, and
subcontractor costs (i.e., utility clearance, drilling, laboratory, and survey
contractors). Labor costs and related fees are based on our current fee
schedule for services agreed to with the CIC.
Exhibit "B -1"
Task/Activity Labor Cost Subcontractor Costs Expenses Totals
Additional Field $ 22,650 $ 41,600 $3,500 $67,750
Investigation
Risk Analysis $ 13,425 $0 $1,075 $14,500
Feasibility Study $ 5,375 $0 $450 $5,825
DTSC /Navy $7,450 $0 $700 $8,150
Coordination
Estimated Costs $96,225
ERM notes that the proposed cost is an estimate, based on our current
understanding of project requirements and site conditions, and we
therefore cannot guarantee that the proposed scope can be accomplished
for the stated budget estimate. Only actual costs related to the project
will be billed, and we will not exceed the proposed cost associated with
the most applicable scenario without the City's prior written consent.
The costs presented herein are based on the following assumptions and
conditions:
• ERM will have complete access for all site investigation activities, to
be coordinated through representatives of ProLogis and/or the City.
• Demolition activities at the site are substantially complete for the
winter and will not in any way inhibit implementation of the
proposed field investigation.
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March 2006
Page 12
• Samples will be collected at a maximum of 43 locations, with the
maximum depth of any boring being approximately 8 feet bgs, taking
into account presumed final grade.
• A maximum of 95 samples will be analyzed for PAHs with SIM
(USEPA Method 8270/8310), a maximum of 10 samples will be
analyzed for naphthalene (USEPA Method 8260B), and a maximum of
six samples will be analyzed for PCBs (USEPA Method 8082A). No
samples will be analyzed for cadmium concentrations.
• All of the documentation generated as a result of this investigation
(i.e., field investigation data, analytical data, tables and figures,
results for the screening -level and baseline risk assessments, and the
FS) can all be incorporated into a single report of findings suitable for
submittal to DTSC and the Navy.
• Meetings with the City, DTSC, and the Navy will be in accordance
with the levels of effort described above.
PROPOSED PROGRESS AND REPORTING SCHEDULE
ERM understands that it is important to complete all evaluations
associated with this project so that our findings can be interfaced with
the Navy's Proposed Plan and ROD. As a result, we also recognize that
this project must be completed within a timeframe that will allow the
Navy to consider and / or incorporate our findings when establishing
institutional controls under its Final FS and Proposed Plan.
Based on current discussions with the Navy, we understand that its draft
FS will be available for regulatory review in May 2006, and that we can
anticipate a final FS and draft Proposed Plan by approximately August
2006. This would suggest a ROD by the end of the year. Although that
seems like a lengthy process, it is still important for the City to complete
its evaluation as soon as possible. Our proposed implementation
schedule is summarized in the following table.
Ms. Debbie Potter, City of Alameda
24 March 2006
Page 13
Activity Estimated Start Date Estimated Completion Date
CIC Authorization 3/27/06 6/6/06
Field Investigation 6/12/06 6/23/06
Data Reduction /Analysis 6/26/06 7/7/06
Risk Analysis 7/10/06 7/21/06
Feasibility Study 7/24/06 8/4/06
Project Reporting 7/10/06 8/18/06
DTSC /Navy Coordination 7/10/06 9/1/06
We note that this schedule is approximate, and makes allowances for
City review and comment on various documentation. We anticipate the
schedule could be compressed significantly if necessary, but feel that it
provides sufficient time to integrate our findings with the Navy's
decision documentation. Upon receiving the CIC's approval to proceed
with the project, we will begin to refine the schedule in accordance with
City, DTSC, and Navy schedules.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: June 6, 2006
Re: Recommendation to Approve the Contract with Strategy Research
Institute, Inc. for $14,500 to Conduct a Survey of Local Residents for the
Update of the City of Alameda Economic Development Strategic Plan
BACKGROUND
It has been more than five years since the City Council accepted the Economic
Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) in July 2000 and subsequently approved an EDSP
Implementation Program in March 2001. The process to prepare the original EDSP
involved the Council's creation of a 25- person Task Force, a budget of $60,000, and a
total of 20 months of staff time involving all City departments. Simultaneously, the City
developed the related Downtown Vision Plan, involving a similar budget of $60,000 and
an extensive series of community meetings. The plan development process for both the
EDSP and the Downtown Vision Plan included the retention of numerous professional
consultants including economic, transportation, and urban and community planning
firms.
While the EDSP was prepared as a 10+ -year strategic plan, it calls for periodic review
and update. At a City Council meeting ten months ago, Councilmember Matarrese also
requested that the EDSP be updated. As a result, the Economic Development
Commission (EDC), in conjunction with City staff, is engaged in an effort to update the
EDSP to reflect the City's changed economic and development trends and public
policies. Examples of these changes include selection of the Master Developer for
Alameda Point; preparation of the Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept;
the emerging market for light industrial uses at Harbor Bay Business Park; and the
preparation of numerous policy documents over the last five years, including the
Alameda West Retail Study, the Webster Business District Strategic Plan, and the
Citywide Retail Study.
The EDSP update is a Development Services Department (DSD) staff -led activity. The
DSD 05/06 budget contains a modest fund to assist with the update activity. The EDC
appointed a subcommittee to advise staff throughout the update process. The EDC
Subcommittee also hosted two community workshops on February 23, 2006 and March
2, 2006 to solicit feedback from the community on specific ways to update the EDSP.
The workshops included a status report on the City's economic development
accomplishments since 2000; a presentation on the latest local economic and
Report 1 -B
Special CIC Meeting
6 -7 -06
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 6, 2006
Page2of3
development trends; and a discussion about future economic development goals and
priorities. Additionally, City staff are meeting with representatives of the local business
associations, Alameda Unified School District, and College of Alameda to solicit their
feedback on future economic development opportunities for the City. Lastly, City staff
and the EDC Subcommittee propose conducting a survey of Alameda residents to
ensure that the 2006 update of the EDSP addresses the economic development
priorities of the community at- large.
DISCUSSION
Strategy Research Institute (SRI) was selected by the City to conduct the community
survey for the EDSP update based on their demonstrated expertise and relevant
experience. SRI is an applied research firm comprised of a team of behavioral scientists
and strategic planners. SRI employs advanced scientific methodologies to conduct
surveys for the public policy and private marketing arenas. Local government clients
include East Bay Regional Park District, Bay Area Rapid Transit, AC Transit, and the
Cities of Berkeley, Oakland, Pleasanton, Fremont, and Santa Rosa, among many
others. The proposed contract is on file with the City Clerk.
SRI will assist the City to identify research questions for the survey based on
information gathered from meetings with City staff and the EDC Subcommittee
direction, as well as the community workshops, and stakeholder interviews. The
research questions will focus on ascertaining local residents' specific priorities on a
broad range of City economic development activities. SRI will carefully develop a
questionnaire in a manner that ensures that the question formats and response scales
of the survey address the research questions being asked by the City. SRI then
proposes using the questionnaire to conduct a 12- minute scientific telephone survey of
300 local residents (i.e., 150 residents from the community -at -large and 150 registered
voters), and analyzing the results of the survey using both descriptive and advanced
statistical methods. The findings will be presented to the City in a final report.
All of the research and stakeholder feedback gathered as part of this community
outreach process, including the results of the survey, will be incorporated into the EDSP
update and, subsequently, used as a guide for defining the EDC's and DSD's future
economic development goals and priorities.
POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Periodic update of the July 2000 Economic Development Strategic Plan.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
This project will be funded by Commercial Revitalization funds and will not impact the
General Fund. Professional service fees for this scope of work will not exceed $14,500.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
RECOMMENDATION
June 6, 2006
Page 3 of 3
Approve the contract with Strategy Research Institute, Inc. for $14,500 to conduct a
survey of local residents for the 2006 update of the City's Economic Development
Strategic Plan.
DK/LAL/DES /JO:ry
Re .p i� ully submitte
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
M. nager Business Development
Di 1ision
Je
De
tt
ent Manager
cc: Strategy Research Institute, c/o Dr. George G. Manross
G: \Comdev \econdev\Jennifer \EDSP \Survey \CIC 05 -16 -06 SRI Amendment.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: June 7, 2006
Re: Recommendation to Reject the Sole Bid and to Authorize a 60 -Day
Negotiation with Overaa Construction for the Restoration and
Rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater
BACKGROUND
In March 2005, City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (CIC) staff
screened 11 general contractors interested in bidding on the Alameda Theater
restoration and rehabilitation project. Staff then developed a list of six contractors pre -
qualified to perform the work. The pre - qualification process w_ as intended to help ensure
that the bidders on the project would have the appropriate qualifications for performing
historic restoration and rehabilitation work. On March 21, 2006, the CIC adopted plans
and specifications and authorized a call for bids for the restoration and rehabilitation of
the historic Alameda Theater and the design -build of the Civic Center Parking Garage.
Subsequently, a mandatory pre -bid meeting was held for pre - qualified contractors for
the theater project. Three of the six pre - qualified contractors for the theater project
attended. Bids were opened for the theater on May 10, 2006.
The CIC received only one bid for the theater project from SJ Amoroso in the amount of
$11,187,000, approximately $3.8 million over the CIC's construction estimate budget of
$7.4 million. The CIC project budget includes a construction contingency of 15 percent,
or $1.1 million, above the $7.4 million for a total of $8.5 million. The CIC's theater
construction budget was based on a professional cost estimate prepared by Webcor
Builders, one of the leading contractors in the Bay Area. SJ Amoroso is the General
Contractor on the new Alameda Free Library construction project.
DISCUSSION
Civic Center Parking Garage
Bids were opened for the garage on May 9, 2006. The CIC received three bids for the
garage from the three pre - qualified contractors. Of the three bids, Overaa Construction
of Richmond, California was the lowest apparent bidder at $9,104,000, $800,000 over
Report 2 -A
Special CIC Meeting
6 -7 -06
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
Page 2 of 8
the CIC's garage budget of $8.3 million. This project has a construction contingency of
approximately $800,000, above and beyond the $8.3 million, for a total of $9.1 million.
The other two bids from S.J. Amoroso and West Bay Builders were for $10,081,000 and
$10,118,000, respectively.
As the project is design - build, CIC staff will recommend awarding the contract to Overaa
at a subsequent CIC meeting at the base bid price of approximately $9.1 million, with a
stipulation in the agreement that the Notice to Proceed on the construction phase be
contingent upon value engineering the project to within the CIC's budget of $8.3 million
during the design phase. Overaa has indicated its willingness to enter into this
agreement with the CIC. Ultimately, however, the award of the garage contract to
Overaa by the CIC will depend on what occurs with the theater contract.
Overaa Construction has extensive experience working on design -build parking garages
including working for numerous government entities such as Bay Area Rapid Transit,
the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), and the City of Walnut Creek.
Overaa has a previous relationship with our Construction Manager (CM) including on
the almost complete, on- budget, and on- schedule design -build parking garage for
UCSF. Overaa's low bid for that project exceeded UCSF's budget and our CM engaged
in a value- engineering process with Overaa similar to what is being proposed for the
CIC. Additionally, the proposed architect on Overaa's team for the CIC's garage project
is International Parking Design, a firm that has had positive past experiences working
with the City of Alameda and is familiar with the proposed project and site.
Historic Alameda Theater Rehabilitation
Insufficient funds are available to contract with SJ Amoroso for the $11.2 million historic
theater bid price. Staff met with SJ Amoroso to evaluate the possibility of negotiating a
lower price; however, it became apparent at the meeting that it would be difficult to
reduce SJ Amoroso's bid price by more than $1 million, resulting in a price that would
still far exceed the CIC budget. CIC staff also held meetings and conducted phone
interviews with SJ Amoroso, the pre - qualified contractors that did not to bid, other area
municipalities, and the CIC's architect, construction management team, and cost
estimator to ascertain the reasons for the difference between the SJ Amoroso bid and
the CIC's cost estimate and construction budget. Based on these discussions, the
difference can potentially be explained by a combination of the following factors:
• Insufficient competition. There was only one General Contractor that bid on the
project and there were insufficient subcontractors willing to bid. There is currently
significant demand for construction contractors throughout the Bay Area, allowing
many contractors to select their work more carefully. Not having sufficient
subcontractor coverage is currently a pervasive problem throughout the area. SJ
Amoroso disclosed that in a number of trade areas, they only had one
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
Page 3of8
subcontractor bid. Additionally, some contractors are less interested in
participating in a "hard" bid approach to public works construction.'
• Added risk. A historic restoration project presents additional risks not faced in
typical construction projects, such as unforeseen and concealed conditions.
Additionally, the means and methods for implementing an historic rehabilitation
project are less clear than on new construction projects and create additional
uncertainties. The increased risk and uncertainty can discourage interest in a
project and has the potential to increase prices from contractors that do
participate. Several months ago, the City of Pleasanton issued a call for bids for
a historic restoration project and received no bids. Additionally, the City of
Oakland has recently received a limited number of bids on historic restoration
projects, all of which far exceeded estimated budgets.
• Inflationary environment. For numerous reasons, prices for materials (i.e.,
concrete, rebar), labor, and fuel are currently at a premium and are volatile,
although tending on an upward trend. Despite updating the cost estimate to
account for inflation, it is also possible that cost estimates on certain items could
not appropriately account for inflation and unforeseen cost impacts such as fuel
surcharges.
There are a number of options that the CIC can pursue to address the issues described
above, and, ultimately allow the project to proceed within the confines of the adopted
budget. A combination of the following would be required:
• Increased competition. It would be important to increase competition among
contractors in order to help achieve a contract price within the CIC's budget
parameters. This could be accomplished in a number of ways including, a more
intensive marketing campaign, mitigation or transfer of risk to the CIC from the
contractor, monetary stipends for submitting a bid, and /or postponement to a
slower time of year.
• Mitigation and /or transfer of risk. If the contractors are not accurately pricing
the scope of the project because of perceptions of risk due to unforeseen
conditions or uncertainties about how to implement the scope of work, the CIC
could explore ways of mitigating or transferring some of that risk away from the
contractors. However, this can imply, in certain instances, an assumption of
greater risk by the CIC, and exposure to unforeseen cost increases during the
construction phase.
• Value engineering. The CIC can value engineer aspects of the proposed
rehabilitation and restoration to bring the project within budget. The construction
1 A "hard bid" approach is the typical public works competitive bidding method where contractors bid on
the work outlined in the public entity's construction drawings. There is no negotiation on scope or price.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
Page 4 of 8
management team, the project architect, and possibly a contractor, could review
the scope of work and identify areas to reduce the quality of scope without
reducing the scope of work itself. For instance, the emergency exit and disability
access ramp enclosure proposed for the western side of the building could be
modified to eliminate the enclosure (i.e., roof and walls) while maintaining an
outdoor access and exit ramp that meets the required exiting requirements of the
building code. The potential savings from this change and /or other value
engineering ideas are unknown at this time.
• Scope reduction. The CIC can consider reducing aspects of the proposed
scope without undermining the overall integrity of the rehabilitation and
restoration project. For instance, the air conditioning system or the repairs to the
stage could be postponed until future funding became available for another
phase of rehabilitation.
• Increased funding. There is approximately $1.2 million that remains as an
overall project contingency for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking
Structure project (excluding individual project contingencies for the theater and
garage). The majority of this contingency is likely to be required specifically for
the theater project. Table 1 (Attached A) outlines the sources and uses of funds
for the project and the $1.2 million contingency, as shown at the March 21, 2006
CIC meeting. Furthermore, if the pre- construction and value- engineering process
provides additional assurances to the CIC that certain construction uncertainties
have been eliminated or reduced, the CIC could decide to reduce its individual
theater contingency from 15 percent to 5 percent, to achieve an additional
$700,000 for the construction contract.
Based on this assessment of the likely causes for SJ Amoroso's high bid price and the
likely methods for reducing it, CIC staff and its construction management team
developed several alternatives for the CIC to consider in moving forward with the
project. The following summarizes an analysis of these options (see Attachment B,
Table 2):
Option 1: Reject the Bid and Negotiate Directly with Overaa Construction.
Given the fact that discussions with SJ Amoroso have not been successful in
reducing the bid amount, and that no other pre - qualified contractors have bid on
this project, it does not appear that going out to bid again would be likely to yield
any better result. Under these circumstances, the CIC could reject the SJ
Amoroso bid and enter into negotiations with Overaa Construction —the lowest
apparent bidder on the garage project - -for a firm contract price that meets the
CIC's budget. California courts have concluded that a public agency may be
relieved of its obligation to contract for construction projects through competitive
bidding under certain circumstances. In Graydon v. Pasadena Redevelopment
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
Page 5 of 8
Agency2, the court considered factors including the integrated nature of the
project and the cost impact of the delay that would be required to solicit bids in
upholding the Redevelopment Agency's decision to award the contract for
construction of a parking garage without bidding. (The Agency contracted with
the contractor constructing the adjoining retail center.) Stating its ruling more
generally, the court held that "where competitive proposals work an incongruity
and are unavailing as affecting the final result, or where competitive proposals do
not produce any advantage, or where it is practically impossible to obtain what is
required and to observe such form, competitive bidding is not applicable."
The contract for rehabilitation of the historic theater comes within this exception:
The City actively solicited bids but received only one, which substantially
exceeded the budget. Construction prices continue to rise steeply; there is a
great deal of work available and contractors are being selective. Further bidding,
without extensive modifications to the scope and quality of the work (which would
themselves be expensive) or to the contracting strategy, is unlikely to produce a
better result for the City. Delay would further increase the cost of the project.
Under these circumstances, the City cannot accomplish the project goals through
competitive bidding, and is relieved of any obligation to solicit further bids.
This option provides the CIC with maximum flexibility in collaborating and
negotiating both scope and price. The CIC can negotiate directly with Overaa
Construction to address issues of risk and to evaluate possibilities for value -
engineering and scope reductions. A negotiated contract may also pique the
interest of additional subcontractors, who are currently abstaining from hard -bid
public works projects given the abundance of less risky, private work. Overaa
may provide the CIC with a more competitive price on the theater contract than
other contractors because of the potential for shared facilities and other
economies of scale with the garage project. Additionally, Overaa would have a
strong incentive to negotiate a successful agreement with the CIC since the
ultimate award of the garage contract depends on the execution of a contract for
the theater. Overaa has indicated a desire to work with staff on the theater
project and is qualified to conduct the work (see Attachment C, statement of
qualifications). Overaa Construction has been a contractor for almost 100 years
and is highly esteemed in the construction industry. In 2005, Overaa was ranked
among the top 400 contractors in the country in Engineering News - Record
Magazine and among the top 100 concrete contractors in Concrete Construction
Magazine in 2005. Additionally, Overaa has performed relevant historic
rehabilitation and restoration including the restoration of the historic 1911
Oakland City Hall and the recent seismic rehabilitation and historic restoration of
the First Unitarian Church in downtown Oakland.
2 (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 631
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
Page 6of8
Option 2: Reject the Bid and Re -Bid a Revised Bid Document. The CIC could
reject the SJ Amoroso bid; revise the bid document; and re -bid the project. The
CIC would likely retain a contractor for pre -bid services to help revise the bid
document to make it more competitive and /or less risky to potential bidders, and
to provide more certainty to the CIC that the bids received would come in closer
to the CIC's budget. This pre -bid process would also consider value engineering
and scope reductions for the project, potentially requiring additional time for re-
design. Additionally, CIC staff and its construction management team would be
even more aggressive than before in marketing the project to qualified
contractors and encouraging their participation. While this option is likely to
increase competition, there is no guarantee that multiple contractors will
participate given today's less competitive construction market. Also, some
additional risk may need to be borne by the CIC to achieve the increased
competition. The CIC would have to understand and readily assume this
additional risk. Lastly, while the CIC would be taking steps to increase certainty
about the affordability of the new bid price, uncertainty would inevitably remain
and the time delay could cause more project cost increases due to inflation.
Option 3: Reject the Bid and Change the Bid Format. The CIC could reject
the SJ Amoroso bid, and re- introduce the project into the marketplace using
something other than a typical "hard bid" approach. The CIC could implement a
"Construction Manager at Risk ". (CM at Risk) approach where the CIC would
solicit proposals from General Contractors to work with the CIC as a partner in
developing project parameters and scope within the CIC's budget. The preferred
General Contractor would be selected based on their qualifications and their
proposal for helping the CIC to meets its budget and scope objectives. The cost
of fees and general conditions could be one criterion for selection.
The preferred General Contractor would assist the CIC in meeting with interested
subcontractors and helping to address their perceived uncertainties and risks,
and then, bid sub - contracts to the individual trades. Once the pre- construction
services were complete and a firm price that the CIC could afford was
determined, the CIC would enter into a typical construction contract with the
General Contractor. While this option may take longer to implement, there would
be greater likelihood that the project would meet the budget. This would be the
first time the CIC had employed a CM at Risk project delivery model, creating the
potential for uncertainties throughout its implementation process.
Option 4: Reject the Bid and Postpone Re -Bid. The CIC could postpone the
project and re -bid the same bid document during the winter when contractors
may be available. This may result in more interest from contractors and a greater
number of bidders, if the construction market slows down. There is uncertainty
about whether the construction market will really "cool off' over the next several
months and, if it does, whether the benefits of increased competition would
outweigh the cost inflation that will occur over that same period. Also, re- bidding
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006
Page '7 of 8
the original bid document would not help address contractors concerns about
perceived risks and project uncertainties.
Option 5: Reject the Bid; Terminate the Project DDA and Re -scope the
Project. The CIC could elect to terminate the Disposition and Development
Agreement (DDA) for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure
project with Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P. due to lack of budget, and
direct staff to evaluate other options for reuse of the historic Theater.
The CIC authorized and implemented the standard public competitive bidding process
for the restoration and rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater, but the bid result
exceeded the budget by a substantial margin. CIC staff and its construction
management team recommend Option 1 because that that approach will afford the CIC
with the greatest potential for minimizing perceived risk associated with the project,
generating interest in the project from subcontractors, and increasing the likelihood of
achieving an affordable contract price. Additionally, this option, if successful, will result
in the least construction delay. It is recommended that the CIC reject the sole bid from
SJ Amoroso and authorize staff to conduct a 60 -day negotiation with Overaa
Construction.
POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 — Action B1.0 — Renovate /restore Alameda
Theater.
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 — Action F4 — Consider building a parking
structure as part of a Downtown parking management program.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed recommendation would result in the allocation of the remaining $1.2
million overall project contingency (excluding individual project contingencies) for the
Alameda Theater project. Table 1 outlines the project budget, funding strategy, and
overall project contingency, as shown at the March 21, 2006 CIC meeting.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2066
Page 8 of 8
RECOMMENDATION
1) Reject the sole bid from S.J. Amoroso for the restoration and rehabilitation of the
Alameda Theater;
2) Authorize a 60 -day negotiation period with Overaa Construction for the restoration
and rehabilitation of the historic Alameda Theater; and
3) Allocate the remaining $1.2 million overall project contingency to the Alameda.
Theater project.
Re pew Ily submit
e lie £ . Little
Development Services Director
Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development
Division
DK/LAUDES /JO:ry
Attachments
r Ott
pment Manager
G: \Comdev \econdev\ Jennifer\ Construction \TheateMmoroso \CIC 06 -6 -06 Theater Options.doc
C)
0
0
a
O
0
0
F-
C
_0
C
0
L
O
N
U..
0
(1)
C
CO
CU
P.
0
N
r 0
F- D
0
O _
N m m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ea-
0
0
0
0
0
ti
r
69
N
Q)
N
0
(A
0
0
O
0
0
)o
Ea-
0
0
0)
N
69
SOURCE OF FUNDS
069 00 0
0 01 0
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 o
69 69 00 0
00 00
0 0 0
000
O CO
CO • C- O d'
69
ATTACHMENT A
06r� 609 691 069 0t - 609 pi C 1 60 0
9 0
0
0
0
0
0 a 609691°x}- 609 aEa-69169
o 0 0000 0Cco00((
o CO CO 0 N CCD CO C (10 C) da- co
N
69 6? N N
69 69 691 69 69 6f} Efll Ea
0 0 O 0
0 0 0 0
O O O O
*- O co f-
✓ O 0) 0
00 CO r CO
69 CO N
64 r
000
0 O N-
co N
Ea- 69
69
C
cat
C CU
U
J_ (o y
— C c
O
o 'L
U
• (! N
• E
0
x 0 o
a) 0 U 2
C O co
O a 2 H
Tas
O
69 64 0
0
0
0
(n
69
0
0
0
0
0
(n
64
O
0
0
0
O
r-
O
O
(O
Cy)
co
00
64
0
0
0
0
0
u0
69
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 CD 0 CO 0
O Cfi CO CA
N- r
o �t cn
N N N R
6R
EA 69
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS
0
0
Ef}
N
M
NET BALANCE/ PROJECT CONTINGENCY*
c
O
E
(N!
0
a)
U
a)
0
O
C
a)
-z
0)
C
c
E • >
m
C
0 a)
O
U
U • -o
0) c
0
(0 U
w 7)
o c
0
O U
E P°
E 2
O 2
o
11) c
lb U
_ O
0.
c
O Y
E
� o
a)
cp U
O C
N 0)
a) c
•-
U
.c 0
O c0
O N
c -o
0
U
U -1g
a
o
c o
U N
a
Evaluation of Theater Project Options
ATTACHMENT B
Continued on Page 2
N
c
0
0
0
0
a
r c
c
0
N jp
d
�o
m >
I- w
ATTACHMENT C
HISTORIC AND SEISMIC RETROFIT PROJECTS
Oakland City Hall Seismic Retrofit — Base Isolator Retrofit, Clock Tower and Podium Tower
Renovations, Interior Finishes (5 packages), Oakland, CA: Seismic retrofit, historic restoration
and value engineering of this entire historic high -rise built in 1911. The 204,000 SF facility, located
in a congested downtown area, was the first in the United States to successfully retrofit an historic
high -rise using base isolators. The facility was adjacent to occupied buildings on a site with tight
access. Seismic components were retrofit into the historic fabric of the existing buildings. Numerous
historical materials had to be located to match and restore original architectural features. Contract
value: $33,000,000.
Stanford Quad #1 and #60, Stanford, CA: Seismic retrofit and historical upgrade of two segments
of the century-old main Stanford Quad. The project involved plaster and hollow clay tile work and
adding concrete shear walls without impacting the character of the building. Contract value:
$4,000,000.
Mission San Jose Seismic Rehabilitation, Fremont, CA: Structural strengthening and repair of this
mission building that was originally built in the 1700s. The project included strengthening adobe
walls. The project also included repairing and replacing, piece by piece, distressed timbers. Contract
value: $979,000.
Stanford University Roble Hall, Stanford, CA: Historic renovation, seismic upgrade to an on-
campus building of 188,000 SF. Work included safety upgrades and handicapped compliance
requirements. The site had limited access, with surrounding buildings remaining in full operation
through construction. Construction was phased to allow for some occupancy in hall during
construction. Existing facility was constructed with concrete floors and foundations. The project
included renovation of concrete structural systems, code upgrades and interior improvements.
Contract value: $5,889,000.
Pacific Bell Franklin Street Project, Oakland, CA: Seismic retrofit and life safety improvements to
this occupied, 15 -story, office building in the heart of Oakland's busy downtown area. Work
included installing new concrete shear walls throughout the interior of the building and thickening
and reinforcing the existing walls. Due to the congested area of the site, and that the building was
occupied at the time of construction, Overaa made a phased schedule to adhere to the client's strict
noise and access restrictions. Contract value: $7,500,000.
First Unitarian Church of Oakland Restoration, Oakland, CA: Retrofit and remodel of this
historic church, located adjacent to occupied buildings in a congested downtown area. The retrofit
seismically upgraded two- thirds of the entire building and required coordination to match existing
finishes. Interior concrete walls were incorporated to strengthen existing walls. One -third of the
building was demolished while not disturbing the remainder of the building. A new three -story
building was added between existing buildings. Contract value: $2,800,000.
Saint Mary's College Chapel North and South Seismic Strengthening and Historic Restoration,
Moraga, CA: Seismic strengthening of the 5500 SF chapel and tower. Work included demolition,
adding precast columns and risers, and adding structural steel and electrical. Work also included
restoring artwork on all walls, restoration of all surfaces, pews and wood members, installing ceiling
panels, retiling roof, addition of an organ loft, addition of new lighting, and resurfacing the entire
chapel with granite flooring. Contract value: $3,300,000.
1
OVERAL
San Quentin Retrofit Projects, San Quentin, CA: All projects were occupied during construction,
with work hours shifted to facilitate the owner's schedule and /or a schedule with overlapping phases
to reduce the overall schedule and minimize impact on the client.
• Dining Hall: Retrofit of 22,000 SF dining halls. Included drilling and doweling structural steel to
roof trusses, protection of historic items and night work. Contract value: $2,500,000.
• East Block Housing: Retrofit of 240,000 SF, six -story cell block. The project included installing
concrete buttresses, shear wall system strengthening, reinforcing existing structural steel, lead and
asbestos abatement and shoring existing roof. Work was in the center of the prison campus.
Contract value: $2,400,000.
• North Block Housing: Retrofit of 200,000 SF, six -story cell block. The project included installing
concrete buttresses, shear wall system strengthening, reinforcing existing structural steel, lead and
asbestos abatement, and shoring existing roof. Work was in the center of the prison campus.
Contract value: $3,200,000.
• South & West Block Housing: Retrofit of 500,000 SF, six -story cell block. The project included
installing concrete buttresses, shear wall system strengthening, reinforcing existing structural
steel, lead and asbestos abatement, and shoring existing roof. Cell block was occupied with
almost 2,000 inmates. Work was in the center of the prison campus. Contract value: $7,400,000.
Pier 48 Seismic Improvements Program, San Francisco, CA: Seismic upgrade of concrete and
structural steel that included structural steel bracing, steel - encased concrete piles and concrete beams
and diaphragms. Contract value: $7,402, 126.
St. Elizabeth High School Modernization, Oakland, CA: Seismic upgrade, modernization and new
construction that added interior and exterior shotcrete walls, foundations and classrooms. The facility
was occupied during construction. Contract value: $2,600,000.
2
OvERA4