Loading...
2006-01-04 ARRA PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 390 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Wednesday, January 4, 2006 Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board or a member of the public. 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 14, 2005. 2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 7, 2005. 2 -C. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 5, 2005. 2 -D. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 7, 2005. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning 3 -B. Recommendation to Approve: 1) A Sixth Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources Extending the Term Six Months and Adding $40,000 to the Budget for Environmental Consulting Services within the Master Developer Footprint at Alameda Point and 2) a Fifth Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources Adding $36,000 to the Budget for Environmental Consulting Services within the "Northwest Territories" at Alameda Point. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. ARRA Agenda - January 4, 2006 Page 2 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.) 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 7. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 1, 2006. Notes: • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749 -5800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. • Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. • Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Thursday, July 14, 2005 The meeting convened at 6:25 p.m. with Member Gilmore presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 6:45 p.m.) Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda After the Pledge of Allegiance Member Matarrese motioned to move the Closed Session (Item 3 -A) to the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 4; Noes — 0; Abstentions — 0. 2. Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items Only None. 3. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER: 3 -A. Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Naval Air Station ARRA, U.S. Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners Price and Terms This item was moved to the end of the agenda. 4. PROCLAMATION 4 -A. Proclamation to members of the APAC for their dedication and unwavering commitment to the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point. Member Gilmore addressed the audience and APAC members. She spoke about how APAC has helped the community understand the challenges and issues regarding Alameda Point. Member Gilmore then read the proclamation and handed one out to each of the APAC members. APAC Chair Lee Perez thanked the ARRA Board for the opportunity to serve over the last several years — he spoke about how pleased they (the APAC) were with the response to the Reuse Plan & the participation from the community. He also mentioned that it's been a long haul over the last 12 years since they first started and they were pleased with the outcome so far. Member deHaan, expressed his gratitude for the leadership and dedication that Chair Perez and all the 1 other members of APAC contributed toward the planning efforts of Alameda Point. Members Daysog, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson (who just arrived at this point) also expressed their gratitude. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of March 2, 2005. 5 -B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 6, 2005. 5 -C. Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources extending the term for 90- days and adding $54,000 to the budget for environmental consulting services. 5 -D. Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the approval of Subleases at Alameda Point. 5 -E. Recommendation to amend the approved FY 2005 -2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000 for repairs to the Al Dewitt O'Club. Member Gilmore motioned to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 5; Noes — 0; Abstentions — 0. 6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 6 -A. Presentation of the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point establishing land use goals, transportation strategy and historic preservation strategy. Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, discussed the updates on the Conveyance process with the Navy and the status of the budget. The key topic discussed was the progress with planning efforts regarding the PDC and introduced the document to the Board for their review. Mr. Proud advised that there are continuing discussions with the Navy on disposal strategies and constraints with the property; and that we're moving forward with the Navy regarding a conveyance agreement. He discussed the community meetings and the success in each of the workshops to tackle specific topics that helped produce this draft document (the PDC). He further discussed issues at Alameda Point (AP) about Navy conveyance and the land planning process. Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, focused on the Community Reuse Plan and the draft PDC. He discussed what the community's expectations for the development of AP and what the real priorities are. He advised that the PDC was an integration of "new" with the "old" (Community Reuse Plan). Mr. Thomas explained the several Appendices of the PDC, which included the Transportation Strategy, specifically the Broadway /Jackson feasibility study; and the Historic Preservation element. 2 Regarding the Historic Preservation, Mr. Thomas discussed that there was a lot of community involvement with questions regarding which buildings and homes to keep and which to get rid of. The residential portion of the plan included 3000 new units: homes for sale and rentals. There were several speakers who discussed various topics related to the PDC, including: - Conversion of the naval base - Measure A - Adequate school facilities at AP. - Transportation planning - Solar energy equipment - Keeping the BOQ building for Veterans or Senior Housing - Historic District Preservation - Housing for all income levels 7. ORAL REPORT 7 -A. Oral report from APAC. No oral report. 7 -B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. Councilmember Matarrese discussed topics from the last RAB meeting, including clean -up methods, and how petroleum is being extracted. He also gave an update on the BCT activities and the schedule for the site management program, which lists all the clean -up activities. 8. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) No speaker slips. 9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None 10. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:21 P.M. Respectfully submitted, rma Glidden ARRA Secretary 3 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, September 7, 2005 The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Member Daysog presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 19, 2005 2 -B. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to direct PM Realty Group, acting as Property Manager, to enter into a contract with Manson Construction Company to dredge The Alameda Point channel in an amount not to exceed $575,000. Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 3; Noes — 0; Abstentions — 0. 3. Presentation 3 -A Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning. Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager gave a brief update on the AP conveyance activities. There is a meeting scheduled with the Navy on September 29th to discuss, and come to a resolution, on the `divide' in the analysis of the value of the property. The outcome of that meeting will be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting on October 5`h. Mr. Proud introduced Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, to give an update on the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC). Mr. Thomas discussed staff's review of comments received from the public and from the ARRA Board (of the July 14`h meeting) and efforts to use this information to make revisions to the PDC. The revisions include addressing and clarifying a number of issues, such as its role, its purpose, and the Next Steps to clarify Historic Preservation issues. The document will also be revised to include an additional appendix in response to some of the requests for more financial information - the financial trade offs that are embedded within the PDC. The plan is to present the revised draft PDC to the ARRA Board and the public at the October 5th ARRA Board meeting. Revisions to the document will be in a red - lined, strikeout version so the public can very clearly see where changes were made. 1 Mr. Thomas announced that we received a $250,000 grant Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant, a land planning grant to help with next phases of the planning for Alameda Point, particularly around the transit center. There is also progress toward a memorandum of agreement with BART on a $485,000. grant, a federal earmark that was received over a year ago We have been meeting with representatives from the Navy and the Local Historic Preservation Community to continue the discussion on the Historic Preservation issues that were generated by the PDC, and that is in the context of the Section 106 consultation which is really a Navy lead effort. A briefing to discuss the PDC and the 106 consultation process with the Historical Advisory Board on Alameda Point is planned for October 6t''' City Staff has also been invited to attend a League of Women's Voters workshop on September 29th and November 15th. Member Daysog called 2 speakers, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, and Neil Garcia Sinclair of Cybertran who gave a quick update on the Cybertran/ University of California/BART coalition and the proposal of establishing a research center in transportation energy at Alameda Point. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 5. ORAL REPORTS 5 -A Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. Councilmember Matarrese was unable to attend last week's RAB meeting, so there is no report. 6. ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) There was one speaker slip, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the VA, development at Alameda Point; and various unrelated topics as well. 7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Member Daysog welcomed the new City Manager, Debra Kurita, who is also the Executive Director of the ARRA, to her first ARRA meeting. 8. ADJOURMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, a lidden ARRA Secretary 2 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, October 5, 2005 The meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. • ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Report from the Executive Director recommending the Approval of Alameda Power & Telecom Sublease at Alameda Point. Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was seconded by Tony Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 5: Noes — 0; Abstentions — 0 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Presentation of the Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development concept (PDC) — A Planning Feasibility Study for the Redevelopment and Reuse of the Former Alameda Naval Air Station. Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the revised PDC, and discussed what the major revisions were, including: alternative plans approaches, various constraints affecting the layout and design, and a clarification in the executive summary that the PDC is a feasibility study, and not the final "plan ". The revised PDC also included expanded discussion regarding Measure A issues, and a good foundation for a solid transportation strategy. Mr. Thomas further summarized the revisions, stating that the phasing program is conceptual and there was text added to include information on civic community type facilities, churches and plazas, etc. emphasizing that the general plan calls for these kinds of uses. There were a number of revisions to the Next Steps chapter, primarily the environmental review and entitlement process for the first phase should our master developer choose to proceed. Chair Johnson called up the several speakers who discussed the following topics: - concern about the insufficiency of neighborhood centers 1 - a representative from AAPS requested a reuse study be included in the PDC for the historic buildings - a representative from the APC expressed their interest in continuing to be involved in the development plan process a representative from Operation Dignity expressed concerns about the Board accepting the PDC in draft form representatives from HOMES and the Sierra Club expressed their appreciation and support with the progress of the PDC compared to other developments. Member Matarrese thanked the staff for providing the input and revisions. He agreed with the speaker who mentioned that the Board should not approve a draft document; and rather, approve a final document. He would like to see more information on a green standards plan and a plan for sustainable communities and expressed concern about the word "feasibility study ", afraid it might be dismissed because it does not "comply" with the PDC. He further stated that the PDC document is still conceptual. Members Gilmore and Daysog agreed with Member Matarrese's statements. Member Daysog would like to see more information on the fiscal implications of the PDC, especially on Phase II and Phase III. Member deHaan reminded folks that there was a community reuse plan prior to this PDC, which included the development of commercial and industrial spaces to maximize transportation. Member Matarrese motioned for Council to direct staff to simulate the comments that were made and produce a final document for approval. He requested the document be in red - line /strikeout format so that revisions are clearly seen in the document. City Manager, Debra Kurita, recommended that the draft revisions be text -only to save cost. It was agreed by all Boardmembers to just bring back the document at the regular ARRA Board meeting in November; there was no need to make a motion for this action. Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, clarified some points to the Board. He stated that the PDC is a component of the conditional acquisition agreement (CAA) that we have with APCP. Other components include getting a conveyance agreement structure set forward with the Navy and then the completion of the preliminary development concept. Based on the timing with regards to meeting with the Navy, Mr. Proud recommended the revised document be brought back at the December meeting, instead of November. All Boardmembers accepted this recommendation. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. There was no report, as Member Matarrese stated the meeting was the following day. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Bill Smith spoke about various topics. 2 Alex McElree, Executive Director of Operation Diginity, requested the ARRA Board encourage the City Council to fulfill the promise they made to Operation Dignity and to the homeless through the homeless conveyance of the McCain/Feinstein Act and build the 39 -Units (homes). 6. COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY. None. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary 3 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, December 7, 2005 The meeting convened at 7:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 7:37 p.m.) Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 16, 2004 2 -B. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 2005 2 -C. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 1, 2005 Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 3; Noes — 0; Abstentions —1 (Member Gilmore). 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Presentation of Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC). Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the "text- only" changes made to the July 5th Draft PDC. The changes were made in response to comments heard at the July and October 2005 ARRA Board meetings. Mr. Thomas summarized the major changes and asked that the ARRA approve the changes as well as other modifications to the text, and identify final revisions in order to bring a finalized document back to the Board at its regular meeting in February 2006. A summary of the changes included: - clearer description of the purpose of the PDC, identifies it as a planning study and not a regulatory document without any legally binding effect. - there is more emphasis and clarity that the plan for Alameda Point is a mixed -use plan, maintaining financial feasibility and historic preservation. - recommending work -live ordinance. 1 Changes were made in the Introduction, Land Use and the Next Steps chapters emphasizing that it is the City's goal to have a sustainable environmentally sensitive development at Alameda Point. The Next Steps chapter outlines the key issues that are still going to require additional study, particularly the compromises and trade -offs. There is more description about how the non - Measure A alternative will be evaluated in the EIR process; and further exploration of maintaining historical preservation, as well as financial possibilities surrounding the historic buildings. Also included are the next steps to implementing the Transportation Strategy. Two appendices, the Transportation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Financial Feasibility and Fiscal Neutrality (Appendix E), were also revised. Member Gilmore allowed the several speakers to make their statements prior to the Board making their comments. The speakers discussed various PDC- related topics, including Historic Preservation concerns regarding the Big Whites and the Hangars; requests for additional buildings identified for Historic Preservation be placed on the HAB agenda/study list for February, and to request and Historic Preservation Master Plan and an Adaptive Reuse Study to be done soon, or as part of the Navy's Section 106 process. Also discussed concerns about the Seaplane Lagoon development encroachments and non- measure A alternatives. Consideration of Building 3 for the Neptune Beach Amusement Museum was discussed. Alameda School Board representative thanked staff and the ARRA board for including the issues of school facilities in the PDC. Alternatives in Action representative discussed issues regarding the early termination of their lease and the ARRA's request of them for removal of a portable building. Member Daysog asked what were the major changes to Appendix E (Financial Feasibility and Fiscal Neutrality). Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that there was clarity added to the language and that the financial feasibility study done for the first phase will be replicated for subsequent phases. There will be a better understanding of the financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality questions once we are clear on the development programs. Member Daysog further discussed his concern regarding the Measure A and non - Measure A options, and Phase I revenue generation. Mr. Proud explained that projections made in the document have a built -in fiscal mitigation payment which will come directly from project proceeds to offset public expenditures and public revenues that we collect. Member Daysog requested more detail and clarity on the property taxes for use on a range of services; he also requested a better understanding on the fiscal mitigation payment and operational issues. Member deHaan addressed issues in the body of the PDC and, with the consensus of the other board members, requested several action items to be completed by staff: 1. Expand the paragraph in the Next Steps chapter to elaborate on the Historic Preservation — what the Navy is doing concurrent with us on their studies. 2. Provide more clarity on the commercial development plan for the 336,000 sq. ft. of retail and identify the commercial endeavors being pursued. 3. Provide separate analysis (off- agenda) on the HazMat clean -up; scenario of costs between single family vs. multi family, etc. for financial feasibility. 4. Regarding the timeline and series of studies to be completed on the Historic 9 Preservation: Emphasize the need to get information at the earliest possible date so that the information could be used in the process of developing a plan which is then ultimately evaluated in the EIR, and NOT when the final EIR comes out. 5. Appendix E - What would Phase I of Fiscal Mitigation payment be? And an explanation of why we are not contemplating municipal services fee (like Bayport)? 6. Continued emphasis that this "Preliminary" plan document is a step to a "Final" plan. All Boardmembers accepted staff recommendation to bring back a Final version of the PDC in February 2006. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. Boardmember Matarrese reported on the RAB meeting from November because he did not attend the Dec. meeting (he was attending D.A.R.E.) There was a presentation on the remediation strategies for Site 27, between Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Nelson's Marine. There were a wide range of options (9 remediation strategies), and there was a uniform recommendation and vote to advise the Navy to use the most efficient and rapid remediation strategy. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) Marilyn York, Barbara Bach, and Ken Robles of the Alameda Naval Air Museum spoke about their proposed 10 -year lease. Chair Johnson advised that they are looking forward to receiving the lease for review but have not seen it come to the Board yet. 6. COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY. Boardmember Daysog requested the Board address Gail Greeley's issues regarding Home Sweet Home and moving a portable building. Member Matarrese requested an off- agenda report addressing this same issue. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary 3 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum January 4, 2006 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director SUBJ: Update on Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning Background 3 -A Attached are the presentation slides for the Alameda Point Update. The following is a brief overview of each of the topics set forth in the presentation. Discussion Navy Negotiations The Navy and the ARRA have engaged in ongoing negotiations regarding the conveyance terms for Alameda Point. While the parties have reached general agreement on the phasing of conveyance and the underlying land uses that serve as the basis for determining the value of the property, there are several key conveyance terms that are still under discussion. These include: • What will be the structure of any compensation payments to the Navy for the property? • When will payments be made and what activities will trigger the payments? + How will the environmental remediation responsibilities be divided among the parties? Once final agreement has been reached on the conveyance teuus, they will be memorialized in a term sheet between the Navy and the ARRA. Toward that end, staff and the Navy have begun work on term sheet outline for Alameda Point. Budget In December 2003, the ARRA issued a $3.5M lease revenue bond to fund the ARRA's obligations under the Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA) with Alameda Point Community Partners. These funds were used to bring technical expertise to the ARRA to assist in the conveyance negotiations and land planning of Alameda Point. The budget outlined in the attached presentation shows that the ARRA budgeted approximately $1.46M for conveyance negotiations and approximately $890,000 for the preparation of the Preliminary Development Concept for Alameda Point. In addition, the budget for internal ARRA costs is approximately $1.0M and the budget for contingencies is $147,000. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 4, 2006 Page 2 The ARRA -led predevelopment period was anticipated to run from December 2003 through June 2005, and based on that timeframe, the original budget was constructed as an 18 month budget. However, as noted above, the ARRA and the Navy are still negotiating the conveyance terms for Alameda Point. Due to lower than anticipated costs, monies have been reallocated from selected consultant expenses associated with the conveyance negotiations to offset additional ARRA staff costs associated with the project's extended timeframe. To date, the ARRA has expended approximately $2.86M and based on existing contractual obligations, expects to fully expend the total $3.5M bond allocation. It is important to note that while the contingency budget has generally remained unchanged, additional delays in the conveyance of the property will erode this balance and exhaust the funds available for the ARRA -led predevelopment activities. Preliminary Development Concept The draft Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) was initially presented to the ARRA Board at its July 2005 meeting and follow -up presentations occurred at the meetings held in October and in December 2005. Staff is incorporating the comments received at those public hearings into a final version of the PDC, which will be presented to the ARRA Board on February 1, 2006. Recommendation This report is for informational purposes only. No action is being requested. Respectfully submitted, Stephen Proud Alameda Point Project Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Alameda Point Progress Report L as 0 ca '"` cc cc 0 V 'till .4E' W L 0 January 4, 2006 N a E N 0 a) -tom O �- a) ^^�, tit. � a) o 0 0 c ai 4E' N 0) N > - E o 0 0 — .� N > N N as 0 o O c 0 a) fr ti. • • • 0 c� - o a� as E .� 8 Va) I— CO c a) V U cti L N c 1— Q > O c cc c 'cn cc � N U O CZ co 0 z L i N = 0 o z3 Q ID i .0 > u °' z� cz CC �� zo cz 0) C. 2 cD Zcum — 0) L o z3 ' S 0_ CC t .._, c (I) E • IMMO .5 .L_! c E _ 8 '°- ° c� 0 as as � � cv U O Z4) 2 o� c O 0 cm c 0i=w c E co a) 0 i i i U E- Budget Update is■ L O N Op CO ..0 O > 2,863,21 tua) e—' c— 0 © 0 n rn -6A- Ul NFU N . N. ° ..... ,. ' 0000 n br 0o c n ! N 4 LC) N 0 0 r— CO 0 0 0 LC) C•n (gel -EA- C = o C1.) bA U . C C c c0 cr) to RA Costs � � m 3ud U D o > c 3 Z ct o 1-- 0 U c! <C J W 0 0 E 0 c c — 9 _ Q U Q "-1.:70 Q o C21 —ao L() QCU ID c-75 c LN E o a5 --4-'= c�cv �� o�o� „ � Q (J � � Q CU CU o- c c CD � t��•�Dos) oo �oo� 4...,a a)z� j +a E o�`Q El...) 0 as a cs = =0 0 4 E a) CZ 0 ti CL ��oo a) 'ao _00c a co Li_ .a W0 CL COcicZ • • • Master Developer (APCP) Election to Proceed ci 0 E vo 1 co '2) 0 0 0 N E a) w 0_ 0 a_ <C C'7 0 a) 0 c 0 0 1 a) E E a o — W o D .0 tti cc 1111 111111111•11 E 0 0 N c Environmenta Community Engagement CCi U Implementation Phase 1 Development 2007 — 2011 m 0 0 N CV 1 I N CO T T- 0 0 N N CU 4) E E a_ O ▪ 0 0 0 > > 0 a o N Cn CZ CZ O Q • • • Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Memorandum January 4, 2006 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director 3 -B SUBJ: Recommendation to Approve : 1) A Sixth Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources Extending the Term Six Months and Adding $40,000 to the Budget for Environmental Consulting Services within the Master Developer Footprint at Alameda Point and 2) a Fifth Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources Adding $36,000 to the Budget for Environmental Consulting Services within the "Northwest Territories" at Alameda Point Background Russell Resources (previously contracting with the ARRA as Northgate Environmental) has provided environmental consulting services to the ARRA for the past eight years. Russell Resources reviews, analyzes, and prepares comments on Navy environmental documents for the clean-up of East Housing, FISC Alameda Annex (FISCA) and the Alameda Naval Air Station (Alameda Point) on behalf of the ARRA. In addition, Russell Resources attends and represents the City /ARRA at meetings with regulatory agencies and the Navy and provides professional expertise to ARRA staff to allow full participation in the cleanup decisions made by the Navy. Russell Resources has two agreements with the ARRA: one to provide environmental consulting as part of negotiations with the Navy regarding property transfer and clean-up activities within the master developer footprint; and another for consulting in support of the proposed golf course development in the Northwest Territories and other environmental issues at Alameda Point outside of the master developer footprint. Discussion "Master Developer" Agreement Russell Resources' existing contract expired on December 31, 2005. The proposed contract amendment will extend the term of the contract for six months to June 30, 2006, and will increase the contract by $40,000 to cover ongoing activities related to the contracted scope of services. During this extended term, Russell Resources will support the discussions with the Navy related to the conveyance of Alameda Point and will provide technical support to the staff on current and future environmental remediation within the master developer footprint. In addition, Russell Resources will continue to attend all Base Closure Team (BCT) meetings, attend regularly scheduled ARRA Land Use Team and Conveyance Team meetings, attend ARRA/Navy negotiation meetings (as needed), and attend other technical meetings that may be necessary to support conveyance of Alameda Point. Finally, Russell Resources will review all technical documents, including reports Dedicated to Excellence, Conunitted to Service Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 4, 2006 Page 2 and work plans, and prepare comments on behalf of the ARRA to support the successful transfer and redevelopment of the master developer footprint. In the event that APCP exercises its option to proceed with property entitlement activities prior to June 2006, APCP will assume funding of this agreement through a "cost recovery" agreement to be negotiated with the city. "Northwest Territories" Agreement Russell Resources' current contract is funded for $75,000 and expires on June 30, 2006. Additional funding in the amount of $36,000 is needed for the remaining six month term. In May, 2005, the Navy issued a major Feasibility Study for the cleanup of IR -01, comprising 78 acres and including the landfill, which is located on a portion of the proposed Golf Course site. This occurred after the recirculation of the Draft EIR for the Golf Course and has required additional coordination with regulators and the Navy to address the changes needed in the Hazardous Materials Section of the EIR and to revise the Response to Comments for the Final EIR. As a result, Russell Resources was required to do more work than originally anticipated. The additional funds will be budgeted for the next six months to provide technical support necessary to certify the golf course EIR; to review and comment on Navy environmental documents for IR sites outside of the master developer footprint; and to participate in meetings with State and Federal environmental regulators and/or the Navy on clean-up issues outside the master developer footprint. It should be noted that the request for additional funding for both consulting agreements is necessary in part because of increased Federal funding for Navy- sponsored environmental clean-up activities. For example, an additional $50 million in Federal funds will be spent this fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2005 — Sept. 30, 2006) at Alameda Point on such work. This almost doubles the previous year's expenditures. More funding generates more activity and related documents to be reviewed. This increases the ARRA's demand for technical environmental services. Fiscal Impact The proposed additional $40,000 for the "Master Developer" agreement will be paid from bond proceeds secured by Alameda Point lease revenues to fund the ARRA led pre- development activities at Alameda Point. The proposed additional $36,000 for the "Northwest Territories" agreement will be funded by Alameda Point lease revenues. Recommendation It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approve: Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 4, 2006 Page 3 1) The attached sixth amendment to agreement with Russell Resources for environmental consulting services relating to the "Master Developer" footprint, extending the term of the contract by six months, to June 30, 2006, and increasing the budget by $40,000 for a total budget amount of $506,0001 over a three -year term. 2) The attached fifth amendment to agreement with Russell Resources for environmental consulting services relating to the Nortwest Territories and property outside the "Master Developer" footprint, adding $36,000 for ongoing review of cleanup activities. Respe 1 submitte slie Little Development Services Director By: Stephen Proud Alameda Point Project Manager Attachments: Sixth Amendment to "Master Developer" Agreement — Russell Resources Fifth Amendment to "Northwest Territories" Agreement — Russell Resources 1. APCP reimbursed the ARRA $61,413 of this amount under a prior cost recovery agreement. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT This Amendment of the Agreement, entered into this day of December 2005, by and between ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Joint Powers Authority, (hereinafter referred to as "ARRA "), and RUSSELL RESOURCES, INC., a California corporation, whose address is 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, CA 94903 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On July 1, 2003 an agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. (hereinafter "Agreement "). B. On June 30, 2004, an amendment to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. C. On September 26, 2004, a second amendment to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. D. On September 29, 2004, a third amendment and novation to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA, Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. and Russell Resources, Inc. E. On June 30, 2005, a fourth amendment to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and Consultant. F. ARRA and Consultant desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as follows: 1. Paragraph 2 ( "Services to be Performed) of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: "Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A -1 ", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference." 2. 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 $111,000.00 (Exhibit A -1)." 3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. Russell Resources, Inc. December 2005 Page 1 of 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. ALAMEDA REUSE AND RUSSELL RESOURCES, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Title: Russell Resources, Inc. December 2005 pe-r6 ItS $ i-c Debra Kurita Executive Director RECIM . NDED FOR APPROVAL: Leslie A. Little Development Services Director C7MIAJO Stephen A. Proud Alameda Point Project Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Teresa Hi Assistant City Attorney Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT "A-1" Scope of Work Environmental Technical Assistance, Alameda Point Task 1: Alameda Point BCT Meetings: Prepare for and attend monthly BCT meetings, but no RAB meetings Estimated hours: 110 Russell Resources labor $23,600 Task 2: Document Review for Alameda Point: Navy and its consultants issue several technical environmental documents each month. A selected number of these documents are critically reviewed and commented upon to support ARRA's participation in the remedial decision - making process Estimated hours: 230 Russell Resources labor $49,000 Task 3: Miscellaneous Assignments: Support ARRA's interests in various issues and projects, i.e., evaluation of lease uses at Alameda Point (e.g., impact of proposed use on existing environmental contamination, contribution to contamination, etc.), resolution of RCRA permitting issues that are not related to the Master Developer's involvement; other ad hoc tasks requested by ARRA staff Estimated hours: 145 Russell Resources labor $31,000 Task 4: Project Management: Email, phone calls, other correspondence, cost accounting, coordination, etc. Estimated hours: 35 Russell Resources labor $7,400 Total $111,000 Russell Resources, Inc. December 2005 Page 3 of 3 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT This Amendment of the Agreement, entered into this day of December 2005, by and between ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Joint Powers Authority, (hereinafter referred to as "ARRA ") and RUSSELL RESOURCES, INC., a California corporation, whose address is 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, CA 94903 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On July 2, 2003 an agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. (hereinafter "Agreement "). B. On June 30, 2004, an amendment to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. C. On August 4, 2004, a second amendment to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. D. On September 29, 2004, a third amendment and novation to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA, Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. and Russell Resources, Inc. E. On July 14, 2005, a fourth amendment to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and Consultant. F. On September 30, 2005, a fifth amendment to agreement was entered into by and between ARRA and consultant. G. ARRA and Consultant desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as follows: 1. Paragraph 1 ( "Term ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: "The term of this agreement shall commence on the 2nd day of July 2003, and shall terminate on the 30th day of June 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 Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A -3" which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference." 3. Paragraph 3 ( "Compensation to Consultant ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: "Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount not to exceed $206,000.00 (Exhibit "A ") and $300,000.00 (Exhibit "A -3 ")." 4. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. Russell Resources, Inc. December 2005 Page I of 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. ALAMEDA REUSE AND RUSSELL RESOURCES, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Title: Russell Resources, Inc. December 2005 Debra Kurita Executive Director RECOM - NDED FOR APPROVAL: /_. Leslie A. Little Development Services Director Stephen A. Proud Alameda Point Project Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Teresa Hi Assistant City Attorney Page 2 of 3 Exhibit "A -3" Scope of Work for Russell Resources, Inc. Task 1: Attend Regularly Scheduled Base Closure Team (BCT) Meetings (preparation, meeting attendance, and documentation of meeting). Estimate 15 meetings. Budget: $30,000 (Assumes average cost is $2,000 per meeting) Task 2: Attend Regularly Scheduled ARRA Conveyance Team Meetings and Land Use Team Meetings. Estimate 30 meetings. Budget: $45,000 (Assumes average cost is $1,500 per meeting) Task 3: Attend ARRA/Navy Conveyance Meetings (preparation, meeting attendance, and documentation of meeting). Estimate 15 meetings. Budget: $37,500 (Assumes average cost is $2,500 per meeting) Task 4: Attend Meetings with Regulators and Technical Supplemental Meetings (preparation, meeting attendance, and documentation of meeting). Estimate 45 meetings. Budget: $45,000 (Assumes average cost is $1,000 per meeting) Task 5: Review of Technical Documents Including Reports and Work Plans. Estimate 46 documents. Budget: $115,000 (Assumes average cost of $2,500 per document) Task 6: Additional Consultation (at the request of ARRA) and contingency. The ARRA must preauthorize these tasks. Budget: $27,500 (Approximately 10% of the budget for Tasks 1 -5) Total Contract $300,000 Russell Resources, Mc. December 2005 Page 3 qf3