2006-02-01 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, February 1, 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 Regular Meeting of January 4, 2006.
2 -B. Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures for Special Legal
Counsel; Resolution Amending Resolution No. 002 Regarding the Powers and Authority
of the General Counsel.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Presentation of the Final Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
3 -B. Recommendation to Approve a 20 -year Lease with the Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration (MARAD).
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
7. ADJOURNMENT
ARRA Agenda — February 1, 2006 Page 2
This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is
scheduled for Wednesday, March 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.
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. January 4, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:13 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair 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
ZNI)FEB 0 1 2006
Sec etary of the ARRA
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.
Member Matarrese motioned for approved of the Consent Calendar items. The motion
was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 4; Noes -
0; Abstentions —1 (Member Gilmore abstained on 2 -A and 2 -B)
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager gave a presentation to update the status of
Alameda Point on three different points:
1) Navy conveyance process. There are on -going discussions with the Navy. We're working
with them to develop base case maps, land use plans, and common understanding of economic
terms with the goal of creating a conveyance agreement. Member Matarrese clarified that
`compensation' means that we are going to pay the Navy for property that previously they were
going to convey to us at no cost, a "no cost" conveyance. Mr. Proud confirmed and explained
that the exact structure of that payment to the Navy has not yet been finalized.
Ultimately, all discussion will be memorialized in a Term Sheet, currently in development. The
Term Sheet is the key document that goes with the Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA)
Page 2
executed with APCP. Final approval of the completed Teiiu Sheet needs to come from
Washington before being executed.
Chair Johnson expressed concern and aggravation over the expense for attorneys for the CAM
Fees, questioning why the Navy is going forward with litigation and forcing us to pay attorneys
fees at this point in the negotiations.
Mr. Proud and David Brandt, Assistant City Attorney, explained the Navy's parallel, on -going
legal process, and that the Navy had agreed to stay the proceedings. Mr. Brandt stated that the
Navy will be contacted with a request to stay the proceedings once again. Mr. Proud further
explained that one of the issues in the Term Sheet was resolution of the CAM dispute. The
break -down of the fees will be reviewed.
Member Daysog discussed Public Auction (relating to the sale of property, i.e., Oaknoll)
shouldn't mean loss of local control.
2) Status of project budget. Activities we're currently involved in are conveyance of the
property and Land Use Planning activities. Original bond amount was $3.5M covering an 18
months pre - development period. We are right on budget for land use planning, a little under
budget on Navy Conveyance, but we have contractual obligations that bring us right on budget.
Total ARRA cost is $2.8M or 82% of our budget — this amount understates what we really have
available because we have contractual obligations, the real availability of funds is the $150,000
contingency money.
Member deHaan requested an explanation and background on the Bond. Mr. Proud explained
that the Bond is secured by lease proceeds generated at Alameda Point. Total re -issue is approx.
$12 -$13M.
3) Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) Project. We are moving from draft to a final
Development Plan. The Final PDC and will be presented at the 2/1/06 ARRA Meeting. Next
steps — to finalize our conveyance agreement with the Navy and an Entitlement Process should
the master developer elect to proceed. After the Entitlement Process, a Development and
Disposition Agreement (DDA) will be presented for ARRA Board consideration; upon execution
of the DDA, development of the site can begin.
Member Matarrese requested a concise report on how the bonding will be paid, the revenue
stream and its sources identified, and written in plain English so that the public can be aware of
what our situation is. Analysis that looks at certain portions of Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 are put to
auction, what does that do to projections to covering these bonds.
Chair Johnson further discussed the CAM Fee litigation issue, stating that the ARRA is not
authorizing any more monies to be spent on attorneys. Timing of the fees billing will be
reviewed.
Page 3
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.
Steven Proud gave a brief summary of the services that Russell Resources provides, which
primarily is the oversite of the environmental remediation program for Alameda Point.
Member deHaan motioned for approval of this item. The motion was seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 5: Noes — 0; Abstentions
—0
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese was unable to attend the last RAB meeting due to the DARE Graduation.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Chair Johnson discussed the issue regarding the policies on hiring outside counsel, and that the
policy should apply to all Boards and Bodies. She requested that the policy be brought to the
ARRA so it can be adopted as part of ARRA.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
2-BI
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
Date: February 1, 2006
To: Honorable Chair and Members
of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Carol A. Korade
General Counsel
Re: Resolution Amending Resolution No. 002 Regarding the Powers and Authority of the
General Counsel; Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures
for Special Legal Counsel
Background
On September 6, 2005, the City Council adopted a Resolution empowering the City Attorney to
employ special legal counsel, within certain parameters, and a separate policy for new procedures
which would provide: 1) greater Council oversight for expenditures on outside counsel fees, 2) a
competitive process for the hiring of outside counsel, and 3) monthly financial reports on the
status of expenditures on outside counsel fees. The Council expressed its desire that the same
policy be submitted to the ARRA for its consideration, which would provide consistency among
the various legislative bodies in Alameda.
The City Attorney /General Counsel's Office has been applying the City Council policy to its
management of ARRA outside counsel budget, since the City Council adopted this policy in
September 2005. In order to formalize this policy for the ARRA, the original ARRA Resolution
No. 002 should be amended to further define the parameters of the General's Counsel's authority.
Additionally a separate written ARRA policy has been created, a copy of which is attached to this
staff report. There is an addition to this policy that would allow the Executive Director to
authorize routine unlawful detainer litigation. This is consistent with prior authority.
Fiscal Impact
The outside counsel budget was previously appropriated by the ARRA on June 7, 2005.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Recommendation
February 1, 2006
Page 2
Adopt a Resolution Amendment Resolution No. 002 regarding the Powers and Authority of the
General Counsel, and adopt a separate policy regarding procedures for hiring special legal
counsel.
Attachment
Res ectf ly submitted,
Carol A. Korade
General Counsel
.Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Cheryl\ARRA\2 -B Outside Counsel policy staff rpt.doc
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMEN AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO.37
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 002 REGARDING
THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
WHEREAS, the City Attorney of the City of Alameda acts General Counsel to
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
WHEREAS, at a regular City Council meeting in September 2005, the City
Council took action to empower the City Attorney to employ special legal counsel
within certain budgetary parameters and also adopted a policy regarding hiring
procedures for special legal counsel; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority desires to
memorialize a procedure consistent with that of the City Council for the empowerment
of the General Counsel, particularly with respect to the hiring of special legal counsel
and amend Resolution No. 002 as set forth below;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF
THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY that the General
Counsel shall have the power and it shall be his/her duty to:
Employ special legal counsel unless any of the following occur:
a) Estimated legal fees to exceed $35,000, or
b) Litigation involves policy questions, or
c) Litigation has significant ramifications for the ARRA, or
d) If requested by the Board, or
e) Litigation is to be initiated by the ARRA.
If any of the above criteria is present, the General Counsel must seek
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority empowerment to employ
special legal counsel as soon as practical. In the interim, special legal
counsel retention is limited to the amount necessary to provide
preliminary analysis and assistance.
2. Settle, compromise or discuss any litigation or claims in the amount of
$15,000 or less; settlement proposals exceeding $15,000 must be
approved by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority;
3. Comply with Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Policy
Regarding Procedures for Hiring of Special Legal Counsel.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Governing Board of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority in regular meeting assembled on the 1st day of February,
2006, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of the said City this 1st day of February, 2006.
Irma Glidden, Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
ARRA POLICY REGARDING PROCEDURES
FOR HIRING OF SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL
• General Counsel is authorized by ARRA to spend up to $35,000 per matter
from appropriated budget without prior ARRA approval
• ARRA- initiated litigation requires prior ARRA Authorization
- Except for routine unlawful detainer litigation which may be authorized by
Executive Director
• For matters estimated to cost less than $35,000, General Council hires outside
co- counsel from legal panel selected through RFQ process
• General Counsel meets with ARRA in closed session at the earliest possible
time and provides an analysis of the litigation, including litigation costs, as a
confidential document if any of the following apply:
o Estimated to exceed $35,000 in defense costs
o Involving policy questions
o Having significant ramifications for ARRA
o If requested by ARRA
Limitations on Settlement Authority
• General Counsel's settlement authority is limited to $15,000 for all matters;
settlement proposals exceeding $15,000 must be approved by ARRA
Reporting Requirements
• The General Counsel keeps ARRA apprised of the status of the litigation
through periodic confidential reports
• Monthly financial reports provided on cost of outside counsel on litigation and
transactional matters
• General Counsel provides confidential bi- annual litigation status in January
and July, with updated budget and analysis
o Litigation status reports identify outside co- counsel for each case
o Litigation status reports summarize the proceedings of each ARRA-
initiated and defense case, including all "closed" cases for the current
fiscal year and the preceding five (5) fiscal years
1
o Litigation status reports include more detailed, separate confidential
analysis provided for each litigation matter as attachments to the
litigation status report
o Litigation status report includes costs of litigation and any settlement/
payments made by ARRA
• General Counsel meets periodically in closed session with ARRA to discuss
any pending litigation matter
Limitations on Hiring of Outside Counsel
• General Counsel will limit his/her hiring of outside counsel legal services
from one of the following legal panels, which shall have been selected by City
Attorney /General Counsel using a competitive (RFQ) process:
1) Bond Counsel
2) Litigation Defense (Tort, Public Safety, Construction Contract,
Federal, etc.)
3) Real Property /Condemnation/Unlawful Detailer
4) Miscellaneous Specialty (such as Tax, Labor, Federal/BRAC,
Environmental /CEQA/Land Use, Airport)
• All new contracts for the outside counsel legal panel will be subject to the
$35,000 spending limitation, without express authority to exceed the budget;
City Attorney /General Counsel may not exceed this limitation on budgeted
appropriations without seeking ARRA authorization in open session
2
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
February 1, 2006
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Debra Kurita, Executive Director
Presentation of Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept
From:
Re:
Background
3 -A
In December 2003, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) entered into a
Conditional Acquisition Agreement (CAA) with Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) that
initiated an 18 -month pre - development effort to prepare a Preliminary Development Concept (PDC)
for Alameda Point. Pursuant to the CAA, the PDC should provide: "a conceptual development
program that conforms to the physical, economic, and environmental constraints of NAS Alameda,
including the Project Site, and also fulfills the public goals for development of the Project Site which
are set forth in the Alarneda General Plan and the Alameda Point Reuse Plan."
In January 2004, staff began developing a public engagement strategy and hiring a qualified
consultant team. With the assistance of the ARRA, the Alameda Point Advisory Committee, and the
Planning Board, staff began work on the PDC in the spring of 2004. For the next year, the
staff /consultant team worked closely with the Alameda community and the City Boards and
Commissions to prepare the PDC. A series of well - attended public workshops and numerous Board
and Commission meetings provided the community with a variety of venues to comment on the full
range of issues relevant to the PDC, including, but not limited to: public policy objectives,
environmental constraints, regulatory constraints, including Measure A, alternative land use
programs, historic preservation options, financial trade -offs, and alternative transportation strategies.
On July 14, 2005, staff presented the first draft of the PDC to the ARRA Board. Based upon
comments received at the meeting, staff made a series of revisions to the PDC. Those changes were
presented to the ARRA on October 5, 2005. At the October meeting, the ARRA requested some
additional changes, which were then presented at the December ARRA meeting. At the December
ARRA meeting, the ARRA directed staff to make a limited number of final changes and prepare the
Preliminary Development Concept for final ARRA approval.
Discussion
Final ARRA approval of the PDC represents successful completion of a primary ARRA obligation
under the CAA. However, the PDC is a preliminary concept and does not represent the final
development plan for Alameda Point. It is anticipated that significant additional public planning will
occur before a final development plan is prepared and approved by the City of Alameda.
The PDC includes the following changes requested by the ARRA at the December meeting:
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 1, 2006
Page 2
Changes to the Executive Summary
The Executive Summary was further revised to emphasize and clarify that the PDC is a preliminary
plan and that much more planning is still necessary and appropriate before a final plan can be
approved by the City of Alameda. The Executive Summary was also revised to emphasize that the
value of the PDC is that it highlights some of the most significant trade -offs and compromises that
will be necessary to achieve a final, financially feasible plan for Alameda Point, given the site's
unique physical, environmental, and local regulatory constraints.
Changes to the Land Use Chapter
The Land Use chapter was revised to further emphasize the importance of the non- residential
component of the PDC land use program, including Work/Live uses. The revisions also clarify the
intent and design of the retail component of the program and describe the next steps that will be
necessary to attract the appropriate types of employment uses and restrict or prohibit inappropriate
uses. The Land Use Chapter was also revised to remind the reader of some of the trade -offs and
compromises that are imbedded in the residential component of the PDC land use program.
Specifically, the revisions explain how the Alameda City Charter restricts the ability of the PDC to
provide multifamily rental housing, condominiums, town homes, or the reuse of historic structures
for multi- family residential purposes.
Next Steps Chapter
The Next Steps Chapter was amended to better describe the sequence of historic preservation studies
and evaluations that will be completed during the planning process and well before any final
decisions are made about which buildings should remain and which buildings should be removed. A
new subsection was also added clarifying that an economic development strategy will be prepared to
help guide the decisions over the long term as to which non - residential uses should be encouraged to
locate at Alameda Point and which uses should be prohibited from locating at Alameda Point for
transportation, environmental, or other reasons.
Appendix E: Financial Feasibility and Fiscal Neutrality: Appendix E was further modified to clarify
how the project economics are structured to ensure that the final development plan does not result on
a financial impact on the City of Alameda General Fund.
Environmental Determination
Acceptance of the PDC by the ARRA is an action that is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to
Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 15262 states that an
action to approve or accept a planning study for possible future actions which the ARRA has not
approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Fiscal Impact
February 1, 2006
Page 3
This project is being funded by the 18 -month pre - development bond approved by the ARRA Board
in July 2004.
Recommendation
Approve the February 1, 2006 Preliminary Development Concept for Alameda Point.
Reuse ful, y submitte
On file in the City Clerk's office:
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
Andrew Thomas
Supervising Planner
A. Preliminary Development Concept, February 1, 2006
B. Appendix A: Transportation Strategy
C. Appendix E: Financial Feasibility and Fiscal Neutrality
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
City of Alameda
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 1, 2006
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
3 -B
Re: Recommendation to Approve a 20 -year Lease with the Department of
Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD)
Background
Staff has been negotiating the terms of a 20 -year lease with the Maritime Administration
(MARAD) since May 2002. Initially, Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) took the lead
in negotiations. The outline of the lease (term, space, new construction) was developed during
those negotiations, however the process never yielded in a final agreement. In December 2003,
former Deputy City Manager, Doug Yount, assumed responsibility for finalizing the long -term
lease. After Mr. Yount's departure in February 2004, Development Services staff assumed
responsibility to complete lease negotiations. During this period of time, MARAD has been
operating under the terms of an interim lease. Terms of this interim lease are consistent with
MARAD's prior lease terms, and have extended those terms, pending the final resolution of this
long -term lease.
Currently MARAD is leasing Pier 2 and portions of Piers 1 and 3 at Alameda Point (See
Attachment 1). The rent structure is on a per ship/ per day basis resulting in an average monthly
rent of $145,000. This structure leaves the ARRA vulnerable if a major event sends ships to sea
for long periods of time (tsunami in Indian Ocean, supply for military actions). MARAD also
leases warehouse space in Building 168, which is 117,400 square feet. The rent for Building 168
is $34,000 /month.
Discussion
Lease Terms
The proposed terms for the new 20 -year lease provide flexibility to the ARRA at points that
recognize MARAD's intensification of activity at Alameda Point.
Piers: The rent for the piers is structured as a flat fee. Initially pier rent is $150,000 /month for
the first two years. At month 25, the rent increases 3% annually. If Pier 3, which is currently
shared with the Hornet, becomes available for exclusive use to MARAD, the rent will increase
one -time by 3.5% as an acknowledgement of the additional pier space. If the ARRA does not
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
The Honorable Chair and Members of
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 1, 2006
Page 2
choose to make Pier 3 available to MARAD, only the annual 3% increases after year two will
occur over the life of the lease. If the Hornet is ever moved to a location other than the Alameda
Point Piers, MARAD has requested first right of refusal for Pier 1, thereby securing use to all the
Piers. At that point a lease addendum for Pier 1 would need to be negotiated.
The lease contains a provision that allows MARAD to audit the premises for physical
deficiencies. After the lease is executed, MARAD will perform an audit of the premises to
ensure compliance with the technical requirements of the lease. MARAD will provide the
ARRA with their final audit report. The ARRA will have four months to repair any deficiencies.
Since MARAD has been a tenant at Alameda Point for nearly eight years, both parties anticipate
minor deficiencies or repairs will be needed to the property.
Warehouse: With the execution of a new lease, the warehouse rent will increase 11% to
$38,000 /month for Building 168 with 3% annual increases. In anticipation of the redevelopment
of Alameda Point, the lease also contemplates that the MARAD Warehouse, Building 168, may
need to be relocated or reconstructed to conform to future re -use plans. If this occurs, the lease
sets the warehouse lease rate for a new building at $.70 sf adjusted at the time of construction to
the 2005 construction consumer price index.
In addition, early in the negotiations between MARAD and APCP, an architect developed a
conceptual plan for a MARAD "complex" (Attachment 2). The complex would be a secure,
enclosed area adjacent to Piers 2 and 3 with a space for a newly constructed 88,000 sf
warehouse. The construction of this complex would be feasible only if the Hornet is relocated
from Pier 3.
Dredging
Dredging the Alameda Channel is an ARRA requirement in the existing lease as well as the
proposed long -term lease. In the new lease, MARAD is responsible to fund all dredging events
and if the funds are not made available, the ARRA is not required to dredge. The ARRA will be
responsible to perform annual soundings and perform dredging as needed. Currently soundings
are provided by the Army Corps of Engineers, as the Alameda Channel is a federal channel. To
comply with these requirements, a 20 -year dredging/dragging plan has been developed by the
ARRA and has been accepted by MARAD (Attachment 3). (Dragging is a less expensive
method of moving the shoaled material in the channel to maintain depth.)
Fiscal Impact
The approval of this lease will result in $1,027,500 average annual net lease revenues to the
ARRA. The MARAD lease is located within Tidelands jurisdiction, therefore these revenues are
restricted to use for Tidelands eligible activities.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
The Honorable Chair and Members of
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Recommendation
February 1, 2006
Page 3
Approve a 20 -year Lease with the Department of Transportation Maritime Administration
(MARAD).
Res•ectf 1y submitted,
Development Services Director
By: Nanette Banks, Manager
Finance & Administration Division
LAL/NB:dc
Attachment 1 — Current Leased Premises
Attachment 2 — Map of MARAD complex
Attachment 3 — 20 -year Dredging/Dragging Plan
G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp \ARRA \STAFFREP\2006 \02 Feb\3 -B MARAD.doc
"Dedicated to Excellence, Cornrnitted to Service"
cJ
• 00
1
coc°)cri
0
c.)1
WHARF 2
cI
—.2 1
tTj
• , . \ ,, : \,,,:. \
TN' \ \:,` :',.'s. N.. \ ,,, \ \ ••;,`..,
. •\ \ \ \ NN \ ' \
•., ' ,
FERRY POINT
1
• •
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\ \\\
\\\
\\\\\ \\\
\ \
\\\ \\\
\\\\ \\\\\\\
\.\\
No./
\ \ \
:S.44
0)
11?
192
0
Cfi
11uaulgO131
;1!
/.
/
14/ • J..
-4111C VI
q m
• 9
m h.'
00
- Z
Z
c
rr! Z
5
z
a, g ;;.•
c
o z ■-••
> z tn
t: t:
Z rn
rY9 ril
0c0
z -0
0
0
Cn
m
1
01
n
m
u
00
0>
0
x 0
. N ‘ • .1,
N‘ NN
\ •N . N
\:\ \ . • . ,,,,,,•4,: Z 11
'''• N>( ' N \ 2 #
\ i \
/ , • ', \ 4, N.,,, 's .
•::.,..
‘s,
. ..
'N. '..:\:..N •,i,, ::‘.., ',.
c .1
ni --n \ • . N '. \ ,:.‘„,
z( 0 *. ':
..' . N ' :` ,
\ •..\\'.
\:.' '
'N.'■• '■
GO'•
A
0 in
o
- Id
00
A t
u
[1 LLULUJ
111
\
/
0 14 0
i I
it
:a
C3
>
C:
I GO
>0
zm
cn 70
10 )›
7-1
X> in
Z
H
'7 0
m
> >
X
M >
ID
0
nl
w
SO/Sr /E0 :Pa
Annual Maintenance Cost Summary-Rev2
8
O
N
N
0)
to
CD
(0.
t(
m
C)..
N
O
0
0
3)
0)
I� TOTALS
0
t0
17
18
0)
U)
A W
N
-' O
O CO
V
0) 0)
A
CO N
O
o
2.500
249,000
13.000
2,500
2 500
151,000
8.000
N I
009
000'01.
000'861
N
N 0 0 1
0
2,500
2.500
2.500
148,000
8.000
50,000
3,000
2.500
2,500
2 500
A
°
.•.<
0
C
l tp -4
a o
A lG
I 795,000
0)
178.000
9.000
i?
0) 6)
0) 0
O W
O 0
0 0
0
R.
0)
142,000
7,000
n/a
72,000 1
4.000
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a 1
0) 0
O°`
O 0 0)
0 0
0
1 36,000
2,000
1 n/a
n/a
n/a
Pay Dredging
Quantity (cy)
119.000
J
V
V
N
N
W
_
W
(A
V
1
n/a
n/a
136,171
136.171
n/a
n/a
136,171
CO CO W
O) 72.007 =
j N SO j� N 61
136,171
136.171
_
CO
R. 0)
N fU l
n/a
n/a
136,171
136,171
136.171
Pay Dragging
Area (sf)
n/a
M
to
A
N
0
A
$50,754
$0
$18,400
$18,400
$18,400
0)
to
EA o
O V
0)
A
FA
—,
00
A
0
0
EA iA
..-• cm
CO EA 0
.G O V
0 to
0 A
$50,754
$0
$18,400
$18,400
U) EA
Co 0)
A .L
0 0
0 0
$18,400
$50,754
$0
$50,754
$0
1 $18,400
fA
CO Co
A A
0 0
0 0
3
H) 0
N a
O 0
A tO
Co 0
0 0
Cr
Construction Costs
fR
to
0)
t0
0
O
V
A W _
W (0 W
W
W A
p
0 0 00)
° O
$33,850
$33,850
$1,180,440
$239,940
$33,850
$1,540,700
$279,930
$33,850
$797,760
$159,960
$33,850
$33,850
) E
W W
to CO
0 0
$33,850
$1,157,520
$239,940
E co A
W t0 N
"up
-co 0) O
0 0 0
$33,850
$33,850
Dredging /
Dragging
Cost
$455,770
$1,985,614
$359,910
$52,250
$9,863,804
$52,250
$52,250
En _I.
N
CO CO W
(O _
o p
tfi
N
co
51,591,454
$279,930
552,250
$848,514
$159,960
$52,250
$52,250 1
$52,250
$52,250
$52,250
$1,208,274
$239,940
$453,594
$79,980
$52,250
$52,250
$52,250
Total Cost
$506,250
$11.16
$39.99
$0.38
512.41
fA 69
0 0
OWO
EA fA
0
D o
69
0
co W
fA in EA iA EA EA EA
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 f 0 0
fA fA
0 0
W m
$0.38
$11.40
$39.99
0 W
O tO N
CO 0 0
Total Unit
Cost
($/cy or $lsf)
$4.25
$0.38
$0.38
fit
f0A
V0V
V
b O
0
0 0 0
0
fA EA
WWm
CO O)
o o
0 0
V
V
°
0
fl
0
0
000'9£5
000'2111
A A
W
V
0 0
0 0 0
000`9ES
000,9£5
V m
V
° o
0 0
0) V
V
o °
0 0
Engineering
Costs
$210.000
$36,000
$36,000
$2,522,524
$88.250
$11,603,804
$88,250
$88,250
0
A
m
W
A
0
CO
cNn
0
$2,048,384
$88,250
$1,185,474
$88,250
$88,250
$88,250
$88.250
$88,250
$1,625,214
5710, 574
$88,250
Total Project
Costs
$716,250
$88.250
$88,250
Assumes 95% Hamilton Disposal
.Assumes 5% Contaminated - Montezuma Disposal
Dragging Operation
Dragging Operation
Dragging Operation
Assumes 95% Hamilton Disposal
Assumes 5% Contaminated - Montezuma Disposal
Dragging Operation
Assumes 95% Hamilton Disposal
Assumes 5% Contaminated - Montezuma Disposal
Dragging Operation
Assumes 95% Hamilton Disposal
Assumes 5% Contaminated - Montezuma Disposal
Dragging Operation
Dragging Operation
Dragging Operation
Dragging Operation
Dragging Operation
Assumes 95% Hamilton Disposal
Assumes 5% Contaminated - Montezuma Disposal
Assumes 95% Hamilton Disposal
Assumes 5% Contaminated - Montezuma Disposal
Dragging Operation
Notes /Comments
Assumes 100% Alcatraz SF -11 Disposal
Dra••in• Operation
Dragging Operation
Annual Maintenance Dredging Cost Summary
13NNVH0 1NIOd VQ2INV1V
£ 1N3WHJVI1V
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 1, 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 Council /Authority on agenda items or
business introduced by the Council /Authority may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the
Council /Board. 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. Recommendation to approve a Joint Operating Agreement for
Various Alameda Point Collaborative Housing Projects and a
First Amendment and Assignment Agreement for Spirit of Hope I
Project at Alameda Point. (Development Services)
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Beverly Joh so Ma or
Chair, A a Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority
City of Alameda
Memorandum
February 1, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager/Executive Director
Re:
Background
Approve a Joint Operating Agreement for Various Alameda Point Collaborative
Housing Projects and a First Amendment and Assignment Agreement for Spirit of
Hope I Project at Alameda Point
As required by the federal Base Closure and Community Redevelopment and Homeless
Assistance Act of 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) worked with
the Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development and an organized
group of homeless service providers, known as the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base
Conversion Collaborative (now known as the Alameda Point Collaborative (APC)) to determine
the quantity of residential and commercial square footage that would constitute a reasonable
accommodation of the homeless at the former Alameda Naval Air Station (Alameda Point). On
May 3, 1995, the ARRA adopted the Standards of Reasonableness that provide general
commitments related to future reuse goals at Alameda Point. In July 1995, the Alameda County
Homeless Provider Base Conversion Collaborative submitted a Request of Property at Alameda
Naval Air Station. The requests were considered by staff, and following negotiations, specific
allocations of property were included in the Housing Element of the Naval Air Station (NAS)
Alameda Community Reuse Plan approved by the ARRA in January 1996.
Several non- profit housing providers were allocated 200 existing housing units at Alameda Point
for use by clients transitioning from homelessness. The original providers included, among
others, Resources for Community Development, UA Housing, and United Indian Nation. These
three Providers applied individually for various federal, state, and local funding sources and
rehabilitated a total of 89 housing units within three separate housing projects called
Miramar/Miraposa (32 units), Spirit of Hope I/II (45 units), and Unity Village (12 units).
Between 2001 and 2005, the ARRA approved the assignment and assumption of two subleases, a
Legally Binding Agreement and Property Lease (LBA) and certain funding agreements from
these original Providers to the APC. All 89 APC units are located on land subleased to the APC
by the ARRA through an LBA for each project.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
February 1, 2006
Page 2
In 2005, APC approached staff with a draft Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) that would allow
APC to operate these three housing projects as one financial entity.
Discussion
Joint Operating Agreement
The proposed JOA between the County of Alameda, APC, City of Alameda and ARRA enables
the APC to operate the 89 housing units as one project with unified cash flow, joint reserve
accounts, books and records to enhance the efficiency and viability of operations of all three
Projects. While APC will remain subject to the terms of the various existing financial
agreements under the JOA, it will over time be able to consolidate requests for federal, state,
local and other funding sources. The JOA will remain in effect so long as the APC is the
Provider under the LBA for more than one of the Projects. The JOA requires the County and
APC to notify the City and ARRA 45 days prior to any request to terminate the JOA and
obligates the parties to meet and confer regarding any concerns. APC also remains subject to all
the terms of the LBAs, including those provisions that require the maintenance of tenant and
financial records as well as the City and ARRA's access to them upon request.
First Amendment and Assignment (Spirit of Hope I)
In 2001, the Spirit of Hope projects received both CIC and City funds for the rehabilitation of 45
housing units. Upon a review of the related funding agreements it was determined that
acceptance of the JOA would require that the County assume the rights and obligations of the
HOME Regulatory Agreement for the Spirit of Hope I project. The County has approved the
terms of the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement and Assignment and Assumption
Agreement (First Amendment and Assignment) and will therefore be obligated to monitor this
project for compliance with HOME regulations. This amendment for the Spirit of Hope I
Regulatory Agreement does not have any impact on the ongoing rights and obligations of the
County and City under the Alameda County HOME Consortium Sub - Recipient Agreement. The
City is, however, no longer obligated to implement any HOME monitoring requirements. While
the County will now provide annual HOME monitoring, the Spirit of Hope I units continue to
count toward the City's Inclusionary Housing goals. The City has also been able to maintain its
rights to indemnification under the terms of the Regulatory Agreement. APC has agreed to the
terms of the First Amendment and Assignment.
The JOA and First Amendment and Assignment support APC's efforts to benefit from a better
economy of scale for operations and management activities at the APC community. At the same
time, annual monitoring requirements for the City are streamlined. APC has the financial
capability, management expertise and operational capacity to manage these projects as one
financial entity. The JOA also leaves open the possibility for 30 additional housing units to be
covered under the agreement.
The City Attorney's office has approved the proposed Joint Operating Agreement and prepared
the First Amendment and Assignment for consideration by the ARRA. The documents have
been approved and executed by the County of Alameda and the Alameda Point Collaborative and
are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Upon execution of these agreements, APC can begin
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
February 1, 2006
Page 3
its transition process and move forward with operating the 89 units as one project for purposes of
day -to -day operations, as well as for annual funding cycles for federal, state and local funds.
The JOA will help to ensure APC's ability to meet its financial commitments with the City.
Fiscal Impact
Per the Standard of Reasonableness, approving the Joint Operating Agreement for the housing
projects and the First Amendment and Assignment for the Spirit of Hope I project meets the
commitments of the accommodation plan for the Collaborative and future reuse goals at
Alameda Point.
Recommendation
City Council and ARRA approve the Joint Operating Agreement for various Alameda Point
Collaborative Housing Projects and City Council approve the First Amendment and Assignment
Agreement for the Spirit of Hope I Project and authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to
execute the Agreements.
Leslie Litt e
Development Services Director
By: ebbie Potter
Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager
G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp \ARRA \STAFFREP\2006 \02 Feb \2 -1 -06 JOA Joint CC- ARRA.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service